On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:32:22 -0700
Bo Yan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Sorry for the previous reply. My email settings were not correct, so it
> inserted those confidentiality text, which was not what I intended.
>
> This is what I think:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index ced10c4..0b60bb0 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -1284,7 +1284,7 @@ static bool gic_check_eoimode(struct device_node *node,
> void __iomem **base)
> {
> struct resource cpuif_res;
>
> - of_address_to_resource(node, 1, &cpuif_res);
> + (void)of_address_to_resource(node, 1, &cpuif_res);
>
> if (!is_hyp_mode_available())
> return false;
>
> We are 100% sure of_address_to_resource will succeed in this particular case,
> so "(void)" will help suppress Coverity warning.
In all honesty. I don't see the point of patching the kernel to silence
a warning when we know that this is a false positive. I'm sure you can
flag that one as "false positive" in Coverity.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
