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. -- viresh
