From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D9B20286 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751036AbdILGrV (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:47:21 -0400 Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu ([18.7.68.20]:54628 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750987AbdILGrU (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:47:20 -0400 X-AuditID: 12074414-0ebff70000006ddf-4c-59b782f4c560 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id F4.1E.28127.4F287B95; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id v8C6lF6c025070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:47:16 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o200so25859187itg.0 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUj4DpMsXPVOLmC4GHG4klE8rdIcMxe+vrkuFEMPuIAWP5a3U5Oe DLX2/KGoWU39BJ7scLQNvG7RfTPmoI3HomuXByE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QA1NfiAouial8A8CGWDHP65nrA8j2zUuPTVk5VJXJI8mPYRBzyn+HS8QNFelSOgkppwEZp2ow5lfG9jxa6juqw= X-Received: by 10.36.26.129 with SMTP id 123mr16679896iti.38.1505198835489; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:47:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mhagger@alum.mit.edu Received: by 10.79.13.17 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:47:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20170910073928.ys4nbap76tmiurjh@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170909103131.pppm346qbj2cdxuo@sigill.intra.peff.net> <2b7c0053-bf7a-fbdd-3cf9-39b5d9a962c3@alum.mit.edu> <20170910073928.ys4nbap76tmiurjh@sigill.intra.peff.net> From: Michael Haggerty Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:47:14 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Clean up notes-related code around `load_subtree()` To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johan Herland , Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List , Stefan Beller , Lars Schneider Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqPu9aXukwff/GhZdV7qZHBg9Pm+S C2CM4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4cn4LW8EtzorPJ74xNzBeZO9i5OSQEDCRuLH/EGMXIxeHkMAO JolZ7xqYIJxHTBLXl3xnh3D6GSWetX5jhGgpl7hx5gwLhF0kseLtVKA4B5BdLLH+VBVImFdA UOLkzCdgJUICchKvNtxghLA9Jc4vuQNmcwq4SBw6voMJIn6XUeL8hFAQm01AV2JRTzNYnEVA VeL1/VNMEOMTJVb3KEGMD5CY/HgZG4gtLOAn0bDnMFi5iICsxPfDG8GeYRaYxiRxY+seVpAE s4CmROv23+wTGEVmITlvFpLUAkamVYxyiTmlubq5iZk5xanJusXJiXl5qUW6Fnq5mSV6qSml mxghwS2yg/HISblDjAIcjEo8vA292yKFWBPLiitzDzFKcjApifL+Ft4eKcSXlJ9SmZFYnBFf VJqTWnyIUYKDWUmEd1cBUI43JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM77bbG6n5BAemJJanZqakFqEUxWhoND SYI3ARjFQoJFqempFWmZOSUIaSYOTpDhPEDD/zWCDC8uSMwtzkyHyJ9iNOa4cOfSHyaOA3tu /WESYsnLz0uVEuf1AhknAFKaUZoHNw2WoF4xigM9J8x7EWQgDzC5wc17BbSKCWgVz6UtIKtK EhFSUg2MdTal4Q/+bz+5b03crVfSnX2J3JEqDiVyTHvMYqpi+49bbeir2LDVv5Nbgm3Bpfdu bIKx+ufWfW28LLWgyGqn1W9Wznz9tclMj69VR91YsyMp6sWGW5pGXDd6TMoML79eFS557mDA hOtF6WFHly0v+Wg+Qz9Bxfx9atTqmGnpW8NYj55Zx7ZNiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAd5HnACsDAAA= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 06:45:08AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > >> > So nothing to see here, but since I spent 20 minutes scratching my head >> > (and I know others look at Coverity output and may scratch their heads >> > too), I thought it was worth writing up. And also if I'm wrong, it would >> > be good to know. ;) >> >> Thanks for looking into this. I agree with your analysis. >> >> I wonder whether it is the factor of two between path lengths and byte >> lengths that is confusing Coverity. Perhaps the patch below would help. >> It requires an extra, superfluous, check, but perhaps makes the code a >> tad more readable. I'm neutral on whether we would want to make the change. > > Yeah, I do agree that it makes the code's assumptions a bit easier to > follow. > >> Is there a way to ask Coverity whether a hypothetical change would >> remove the warning, short of merging the change to master? > > You can download and run the build portion of the coverity tools > yourself. [...] Thanks for the info. My suggested tweak doesn't appease Coverity. Given that, I don't think I'll bother adding it to the patch series. Michael