On 02/15/2013 08:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > On 02/15/13 14:17, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 02/15/2013 02:01 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> >>>> So, one could logically believe the check could change to: >>>> >>>> sa_assert(fd == -1 || (fd >= 3 && fd <= 8)); >> >> Yes, I like that. > > If I understood it correctly, the above condition won't shut up > coverity, only sa_assert(fd == -1) does as coverity then thinks that fd > was > 8 and thus closed. Otherwise it does not detect the magic we're > doing later. Yes, correct, hence the need for the "/* coverity[overwrite_var] */ tag. Coverity will try 2 paths and only tell you when it fails. I figured that out when going back through this exercise based on the review. Paying close attention to trail of messages it leaves is the key - when I first made changes to this code - I'm not sure I picked that up. John > > Peter > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list