[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] scripts: add sample model fil

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] scripts: add sample model file for Coverity Scan
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:46:14 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Il 19/03/2014 18:32, Eric Blake ha scritto:
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
+ *  Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
+ *
+ * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or, at your
+ * option, any later version.  See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.

Aren't the license and authors blurbs usually in the other order?

Not in the sample I copied from (migration.c).

+#define assert(x) if (!(x)) __coverity_panic__();

Will this break any 'if () assert(); else {}' blocks?  Obviously, such
blocks already violate coding convention, but you might as well make
this definition safe to use for older code.


+static void __write(uint8_t *buf, int len)

Will the fact that you used 'int len' instead of 'size_t' bite us on 32-
vs. 64-bit?  Same for __read.

Yeah, I copied this from address_space_rw. I'll change to ssize_t to catch negative values.

+void *
+g_malloc0 (size_t n_bytes)
+    void *mem;
+    __coverity_negative_sink__((ssize_t) n_bytes);
+    mem = calloc(1, n_bytes == 0 ? 1 : n_bytes);
+    if (!mem) __coverity_panic__ ();

Is it worth being consistent on spacing before (?


+void g_free (void *mem)
+    if (mem) {
+        free(mem);
+    }

Doesn't coverity already know that free(NULL) is a no-op, without you
having to repeat it?

This part came from Markus. :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]