On 12-02-18, 16:03, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> I agree too. There is no way we can get -1 with initialized cpu frequency 
> table.
> We don't initialize powernv-cpufreq if we don't have valid CPU frequency
> entries. Is there any other way to suppress the Coverity tool warning apart 
> from
> ignoring it?

So IIUC, this warning is generated by an external tool after static
analysis of the code ?

If yes, then just ignore the warning. We shouldn't try fixing the
kernel because a tool isn't smart enough to catch intentional
ignorance of the return value here.


Reply via email to