Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv/pmp: Add assert for ePMP operations

2021-05-25 Thread Alistair Francis
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:56 AM Alistair Francis wrote: > > Although we construct epmp_operation in such a way that it can only be > between 0 and 15 Coverity complains that we don't handle the other > possible cases. To fix Coverity and make it easier for humans to read > add a default case to

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv/pmp: Add assert for ePMP operations

2021-05-20 Thread LIU Zhiwei
Reviewed-by: LIU Zhiwei On 5/21/21 6:55 AM, Alistair Francis wrote: Although we construct epmp_operation in such a way that it can only be between 0 and 15 Coverity complains that we don't handle the other possible cases. To fix Coverity and make it easier for humans to read add a default case

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv/pmp: Add assert for ePMP operations

2021-05-20 Thread Bin Meng
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:56 AM Alistair Francis wrote: > > Although we construct epmp_operation in such a way that it can only be > between 0 and 15 Coverity complains that we don't handle the other > possible cases. To fix Coverity and make it easier for humans to read > add a default case to

[PATCH v1 1/1] target/riscv/pmp: Add assert for ePMP operations

2021-05-20 Thread Alistair Francis
Although we construct epmp_operation in such a way that it can only be between 0 and 15 Coverity complains that we don't handle the other possible cases. To fix Coverity and make it easier for humans to read add a default case to the switch statement that calls g_assert_not_reached(). Fixes: CID