On 06/11/2019 16:19, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>
> On 11/6/19 9:59 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> On 06/11/2019 15:56, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:52:48PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Variable error is being initialized with a value that is never read
>>>> and is being re-assigned a couple of statements later on. The
>>>> assignment is redundant and hence can be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unused value")
>>>
>>> Er... is there a coverity id that goes with this?
>>
>> Unfortunately it is a private one, so it does not make sense to use it.
>
> If it's not in the upstream coverity scan (and AFAICT it's not),
that's because I'm using coverity with improved tuned coverage settings
and coverity scan is just set on the default low setting.
> it makes no sense to reference coverity in the commit log.
> It's not useful to anyone IMHO.
It's useful for tracking which bugs are being picked up with Coverity
and the kind of bug issue. I'm trying to gather stats on static analysis
fixes that land in linux to help catagorize the types of issues with
fixes landing upstream.
>
> -Eric
>
