Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] APEI: pull a signedness check ahead for Coverity's sake

2016-06-09 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 09.06.16 at 16:24, wrote: > On 08/06/16 12:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 64-bit architectures (which is all we care about right now in ACPI >> code), the value coming from a __u32 field makes "len" positive anyway, >> but since from an abstract pov the tool is right, let's just re-order >> t

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] APEI: pull a signedness check ahead for Coverity's sake

2016-06-09 Thread Julien Grall
Hi Jan, On 08/06/16 12:37, Jan Beulich wrote: On 64-bit architectures (which is all we care about right now in ACPI code), the value coming from a __u32 field makes "len" positive anyway, but since from an abstract pov the tool is right, let's just re-order things. All the usage of len are uns

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] APEI: pull a signedness check ahead for Coverity's sake

2016-06-09 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 08/06/16 12:37, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 64-bit architectures (which is all we care about right now in ACPI > code), the value coming from a __u32 field makes "len" positive anyway, > but since from an abstract pov the tool is right, let's just re-order > things. > > Coverity ID: 1204965 > > Sign

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] APEI: pull a signedness check ahead for Coverity's sake

2016-06-08 Thread Jan Beulich
On 64-bit architectures (which is all we care about right now in ACPI code), the value coming from a __u32 field makes "len" positive anyway, but since from an abstract pov the tool is right, let's just re-order things. Coverity ID: 1204965 Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/apei