linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] xfs: remove redundant assignment to variable error

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b301ff34-8848-d219-f73d-8298e7d9bff0@sandeen.net>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:53:20 -0600
From:   Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] xfs: remove redundant assignment to variable error

On 11/6/19 10:33 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 06/11/2019 16:19, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/19 9:59 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2019 15:56, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:52:48PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Variable error is being initialized with a value that is never read
>>>>> and is being re-assigned a couple of statements later on. The
>>>>> assignment is redundant and hence can be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
>>>>
>>>> Er... is there a coverity id that goes with this?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it is a private one, so it does not make sense to use it.
>>
>> If it's not in the upstream coverity scan (and AFAICT it's not),
> 
> that's because I'm using coverity with improved tuned coverage settings
> and coverity scan is just set on the default low setting.
> 
>> it makes no sense to reference coverity in the commit log.
>> It's not useful to anyone IMHO.
> 
> It's useful for tracking which bugs are being picked up with Coverity
> and the kind of bug issue. I'm trying to gather stats on static analysis
> fixes that land in linux to help catagorize the types of issues with
> fixes landing upstream.

The commit log is public.

The way you've tagged the commit really makes no sense to anyone outside
of your org.

Maybe:

Reported-by: Internal Coverity instance

or something would make more sense to the general public?

-Eric