Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/arm: Fix ARM build following c/s 11c397c

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 08/02/17 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/02/17 19:13, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On 08/02/17 19:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > c/s 11c397c broke the ARM build by introducing a common ACCESS_ONCE()
> > > which is
> > > different to the definiton in smmu.c
Forgot this one s/definiton/definition/

> > > The SMMU code included a scalar typecheck, which is worth keeping in the
> > > common case, given ACCESS_ONCE()'s restrictions.  However, express the
> > > typecheck differently so as to avoid Coverity compliants about unused
> > s/compliants/complaint/
> In this case, it is multiple individual complains about unused
> individual variables, so "complaints" is scans perfectly well.
>
> An alternative would be "to avoid Coverity complaining about..." if you
> prefer?
Sorry I was flagging the typo "i" and "a" inverted and not the plural.

> > > variables.
> > OOI, the variable is marked as "__maybe_unused", so why Coverity would
> > complaint?
> The entire purpose of Coverity is to second guess what the programmer
> actually wrote when it looks suspicious.
>
> As for this specific example, I believe that the annotation doesn't even
> survive into the GCC Abstract Syntax Tree, which means Coverity doesn't
> get to see it.  Even if it does, the complaint of "This variable is
> unused - why do you need it?" is still valid.
Oh, thank you for the explanation.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel