Re: [Qemu-devel] [PING 0.14] Missing patches (mostly fixes)

[Anthony Liguori]

On 02/04/2011 11:18 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Markus Armbruster:
> > Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > On 02/02/2011 01:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > [PATCH 1/3] tests: Fix two memory leaks
> > > > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79945/)
> >
> > > > [PATCH 2/3] check-qdict: Fix possible crash
> > > > (http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/79946/)
> > >
> > > Luiz
> >
> > I wouldn't bother with the second one for 0.14. Yes, we're reading
> > lines from a file with %s, but it's a fixed file with known contents, no
> > long lines, and we're reading it in a test program only developers ever
> > use.
> >
> > As to the first one, Luiz has never touched that file. Neither have I,
> > and it's not obvious to me why it should go into 0.14.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Even if the current code does not result in a real bug at the moment,
> it should get fixed:
>
> * Using tools like cppcheck (or others) to find bugs is good,
>   because it finds bugs which are important.
>   Sorting out "unimportant" bugs from the results wastes time
>   which could be invested better, and this waste of time lasts
>   forever until the "unimportant" bug will be fixed. The sooner
>   you fix it, the better it is.

No, this is not a good use of time.  I've said multiple times in the 
past, I'm not interested in implementing work arounds for false 
positives in static analysis tools.

We have enough real problems to fix, we don't need to waste cycles on 
psuedo problems.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> * Code gets copied, and maybe the copy of code with some weakness
>   can expose a real problem.
>
> Therefore I think that both patches should be applied
> at least to qemu master (as they are really simple patches,
> applying them to 0.14 would be cheap and good as well).
>
> Regards,
> Stefan Weil