On mer, 2013-09-18 at 20:50 +1200, Matthew Daley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Dario Faggioli
> <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On mer, 2013-09-18 at 15:37 +1200, Matthew Daley wrote:
> >> Coverity-ID: 1055294
> >> Coverity-ID: 1055295
> >>
> > Ok, forgive my coverity ignorance and sorry if I should know this
> > already, but I do I use these IDs to get some useful information?
> 
> You can if you have access to the scan results. I've just been adding
> them to the commit messages as that's what I've seen done in other
> projects (and other people's Coverity-related Xen patches here). It
> also helps in situations like these.
> 
Ok, fine, just curious, but no big deal at all. Basically, I wanted to
put some of those 'detailed info' in the changelog of the patch we're
talking about below, but again, no big deal, I'll (if I get there first)
just put the IDs there.

> > Still, I think I'd like this fixed by doing something like this:
> >
> >  653     int nr_cpus = 0, i, rc = 0;
> >
> > rather than with what this patch does, for the same reasons already
> > explained in the other e-mails.
> >
> > I'm up for sending such patch myself, but that will be in a while, as
> > right now I'm away from my workstation.
> >
> > Is that fine with you?
> 
> Sure, or I can do it myself soon (ie. as a reply to this, or in the
> next batch of patches). There's no rush (AFAIK ;) )
> 
Indeed. Whoever gets to it first will do and send the patch. :-) If it
is you, please, do Cc me (I'll do the same).

Thanks and Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)