On 6/28/22 14:27, Linus Walleij wrote:

CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.


On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 8:26 AM Michal Simek [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 6/17/22 18:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:20 AM Srinivas Neeli
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

In five different instances the return value of "of_property_read_u32"
API was neither captured nor checked.

Fixed it by capturing the return value and then checking for any error.

Signed-off-by: Srinivas Neeli <redacted>
Addresses-Coverity: "check_return"

I think the best course of action here is to go and fix Coverity while
marking these as false positives.

To the idea of castings -- this is not good style and (many?)
maintainers in kernel do not accept such "workaround" for fixing
broken tool.

Let's wait for Linus what he will say about it.
I can't see nothing wrong about declaring that I am intentionally ignoring
return code.

I don't think this patch should be applied.

The problem with static analysis is that such tools have no feeling
for context at all, and in this case the context makes it pretty
clear why it is safe to ignore these return values.

But we need to adopt the tool to the code not adopt the code to
the tool.

ok. No problem. Thanks for discussion.

Thanks,
Michal

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel