Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 28/01/2015 10:58, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> I examined the differences between local scans with and without a >> derived model file for GLib, to gauge what we're missing (the Coverity >> Scan service we use can't do derived model files). Doesn't look bad, >> but a few missed memory leaks caught my attention. I improved our >> model file to catch them (PATCH 1+2). Topped off with PATCH 3 to >> catch mixing up g_free() and free(). >> >> Markus Armbruster (3): >> coverity: Improve model for GLib memory allocation >> coverity: Model GLib string allocation partially >> coverity: Model g_free() isn't necessarily free() >> >> scripts/coverity-model.c | 228 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> 1 file changed, 193 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >> > > Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
Thanks! > It's missing a patch to add a MAINTAINERS entry though! :) Might as well.
