Re: [PATCH 00/12] Clean up notes-related code around `load_subtree()`
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:47:14 +0200
- From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Clean up notes-related code around `load_subtree()`
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 06:45:08AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> > So nothing to see here, but since I spent 20 minutes scratching my head
>> > (and I know others look at Coverity output and may scratch their heads
>> > too), I thought it was worth writing up. And also if I'm wrong, it would
>> > be good to know. ;)
>> Thanks for looking into this. I agree with your analysis.
>> I wonder whether it is the factor of two between path lengths and byte
>> lengths that is confusing Coverity. Perhaps the patch below would help.
>> It requires an extra, superfluous, check, but perhaps makes the code a
>> tad more readable. I'm neutral on whether we would want to make the change.
> Yeah, I do agree that it makes the code's assumptions a bit easier to
>> Is there a way to ask Coverity whether a hypothetical change would
>> remove the warning, short of merging the change to master?
> You can download and run the build portion of the coverity tools
> yourself. [...]
Thanks for the info.
My suggested tweak doesn't appease Coverity. Given that, I don't think
I'll bother adding it to the patch series.