Re: [PATCH] EDAC, sb_edac: remove redundant update of tad_base

From: Colin Ian King
Date: Thu May 09 2019 - 10:56:48 EST

On 09/05/2019 15:41, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 03:29:42PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> These are the Coverity static analysis warning/error message
>> classifications. Tagging them should be useful for several reasons:
>> 1. We can classify the types of issues being fixed
>> 2. We can see how many issues are being found/fixed with the use of
>> static analysis tools like Coverity
> Who's "We"?

Well, I'm assuming folk who are using Coverity and folk who like
tracking bug stats.

>> 3. It provides some context on how these bugs were being found.
> I figured as much but I have more questions:
> * you say "tools like Coverity" but the name Coverity is in the tag.
> So another tool would want to add its own tag. Which begs the second
> question:
> * has it ever been discussed and/or agreed upon all those "tools" tags?
> Because we remove internal tags which have no bearing on the upstream
> kernel. When I see that tag, how can I find out what it means? Can I run
> coverity myself?

Synopsis provide CoverityScan which can be used for free. There are
several instances of projects on the scan website that are analyzing the
kernel, for example:

> Lemme dig another one:
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch")
> Where do I look up that ID?

> And so on...
> Bottom line of what I'm trying to say is, those tags better be useful to
> the general kernel audience - that means, they should be documented so
> that people can look them up - or better not be in commit messages at
> all.

Yep, I agree, but explaining all the Coverity error types in a kernel
doc is going to take some effort, which I really don't have much time
for at the moment.

> Thx.