On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 18:05, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > In the functions invalidate_and_set_dirty() and > cpu_physical_memory_snapshot_and_clear_dirty(), we assume that we > are dealing with RAM memory regions. In this case we know that > memory_region_get_ram_addr() will succeed. Assert this before we > use the returned ram_addr_t in arithmetic. > > This makes Coverity happier about these functions: it otherwise > complains that we might have an arithmetic overflow that stems > from the possible -1 return from memory_region_get_ram_addr(). > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1547629, 1547715 > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > --
I'm doing a target-arm pullreq so I'll take this patch through that, unless you'd prefer otherwise. thanks -- PMM
