On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 18:06, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 18:08, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 18:27, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: David Woodhouse <d...@amazon.co.uk>
> > Hi; Coverity's "is there missing error handling?"
> > heuristic fired for a change in this code (CID 1508359):
> >
> > > static int transaction_commit(XenstoreImplState *s, XsTransaction *tx)
> > > {
> > > + struct walk_op op;
> > > + XsNode **n;
> > > +
> > > if (s->root_tx != tx->base_tx) {
> > > return EAGAIN;
> > > }
> > > @@ -720,10 +861,18 @@ static int transaction_commit(XenstoreImplState *s,
> > > XsTransaction *tx)
> > > s->root_tx = tx->tx_id;
> > > s->nr_nodes = tx->nr_nodes;
> > >
> > > + init_walk_op(s, &op, XBT_NULL, tx->dom_id, "/", &n);
> >
> > This is the only call to init_walk_op() which ignores its
> > return value. Intentional, or missing error handling?
>
> Hi -- I was going through the unclassified Coverity issues
> again today, and this one's still on the list. Is this a
> bug, or intentional?
Ping^3 -- is this a false positive, or something to be fixed?
It would be nice to be able to classify the coverity issue
appropriately.
thanks
-- PMM
