On 07/14/2015 04:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 13/07/2015 21:41, John Snow wrote: >>>>>> s->ports should never exceed 32, but coverity doesn't know that. >>>>>> ncq_tfs->sector_count should also never exceed 64K. >>>> >>>> Personally I tend to mark that kind of thing as a false >>>> positive in the coverity UI and move on... >>>> >>>> -- PMM >>>> >> Either way; Paolo pinged me about the NCQ one so I figured I'd just do it. > > Yeah, neither is particularly optimal. Every now and then (a couple > years, say) you do have to re-evaluate false positives, so it's better > to fix them if possible. On the other hand the code is uglier. > > Let's ignore these in Coverity---with a triaging comment there about why > they are false positives. > > Paolo >
Alright, I'll follow your lead on this and just adjust the Coverity triaging comments. --js
