On Tuesday, February 11, 2025 3:47:33 PM CET Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:40, Christian Schoenebeck > <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> wrote: > > > > Coverity scan complained about expression "|LARGEFILE" to be non reachable > > and the detailed Coverity report claims O_LARGEFILE was zero. I can't > > reproduce this here, but I assume that means there are at least some > > system(s) which define O_LARGEFILE as zero. > > > > This is not really an issue, but to silence this Coverity warning, add a > > preprocessor wrapper that checks for O_LARGEFILE being non-zero for this > > overall expression. The 'defined(O_LARGEFILE)' check is not necessary, > > but it makes it more clear that we really want to check for the value of > > O_LARGEFILE, not just whether the macro was defined. > > > > Fixes: 9a0dd4b3 > > Resolves: Coverity CID 1591178 > > Reported-by: Coverity Scan > > Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_...@crudebyte.com> > > --- > > hw/9pfs/9p-util-generic.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/hw/9pfs/9p-util-generic.c b/hw/9pfs/9p-util-generic.c > > index 4c1e9c887d..02e359f17b 100644 > > --- a/hw/9pfs/9p-util-generic.c > > +++ b/hw/9pfs/9p-util-generic.c > > @@ -19,7 +19,9 @@ char *qemu_open_flags_tostr(int flags) > > #ifdef O_DIRECT > > (flags & O_DIRECT) ? "|DIRECT" : "", > > #endif > > + #if defined(O_LARGEFILE) && O_LARGEFILE != 0 > > (flags & O_LARGEFILE) ? "|LARGEFILE" : "", > > + #endif > > (flags & O_DIRECTORY) ? "|DIRECTORY" : "", > > (flags & O_NOFOLLOW) ? "|NOFOLLOW" : "", > > #ifdef O_NOATIME > > I don't think we need to make this change -- the code is > correct, and osdep.h defines O_LARGEFILE if the system doesn't, > exactly so that we don't need to put in extra ifdefs in the > code itself. Coverity often fails to understand that some > code is not dead in a different configuration or host OS > than the one that got scanned. I've marked the issue as > a false-positive in the Coverity UI.
Fine with me, thanks! /Christian
