Re: filldir[64] oddness

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:02:22, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 04:40 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:32:04PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > I think coverity is being trigger happy in this case :-)
> > If that's coverity, I'm very disappointed and more than a little  
> > suspicious about the quality of their results.
> About half of the ~50 reports I've looked at so far in their  
> database have been false positives.  In most of those cases, it's  
> not obvious how a checker might have gotten them right instead,  
> though.
Yeah, IMHO it's not really worth optimizing for the obscure and oddly- 
defined cases unless you can actually find valid places where that  
code comes up understandably.  In this particular case, the Coverity  
checker is indirectly pointing out that the code is confusing to the  
reader and could inadvertently be massively broken by changing the  
type of d_name.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/