On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:24:02PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:55 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:27:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
Coverity complained that most, but not all, clients of virUUIDParse
were checking for errors. Silence those coverity warnings
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:27:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
Coverity complained that most, but not all, clients of virUUIDParse
were checking for errors. Silence those coverity warnings by
explicitly marking the cases where we trust the input, and fixing
one instance that really should have
On 10/13/2011 02:55 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:27:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
Coverity complained that most, but not all, clients of virUUIDParse
were checking for errors. Silence those coverity warnings by
explicitly marking the cases where we trust the input, and
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:24:02PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 10/13/2011 02:55 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:27:40PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
@@ -129,9 +129,6 @@ virUUIDParse(const char *uuidstr, unsigned char *uuid) {
const char *cur;
int i;
-if
Coverity complained that most, but not all, clients of virUUIDParse
were checking for errors. Silence those coverity warnings by
explicitly marking the cases where we trust the input, and fixing
one instance that really should have been checking. In particular,
this silences about half of the 46
