[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] coverity: physmem: use simple assertions instead of modellin
From: |
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] coverity: physmem: use simple assertions instead of modelling |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:06:51 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 |
On 16.03.23 00:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 3/15/23 15:28, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 22.02.23 18:57, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 14:19, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 15:22, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
<vsementsov@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
ping
[add Stefan]
I'm not familiar with the Coverity models. Peter Maydell is the maintainer.
We haven't run Coverity scans since September last year.
What's the problem with it? May I help somehow?
The container broke when libslirp was removed, and I've been procrastinating
fixing it. 🙁
Paolo
Hi!
I see Coverity works again. Could we give this patch a try?
Locally, I now run Coverity on master, on master with dropped model (half of my
patch) and with my full patch.
The model, that this patch drops, fixes 94 issues. The assertion I propose
fixes same 94 issues and two more resource leaks.
The model, that this patch drops, also bring 4 issues. The assertion I propose
brings no new issues.
Of course, my local setup is different from QEMU Coverity cloud run.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [PATCH] coverity: physmem: use simple assertions instead of modelling,
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <=