On 09/12/14 02:06, John Ferlan wrote:
Coverity complains that because of how 'offset' is initialized to 0 (zero), the resulting math and comparison on rem is pointless.
For the "while (rem < 0)", the value of 'rem' must be between 0 and 86399 (SECS_PER_DAY = 86400ULL). Thus, the addition of offset (0) does nothing and the while (rem < 0) is pointless.
For the "while (rem > SECS_PER_DAY)", we have the same issue.
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com> ---
From your cover letter: 6 -> virTimeFieldsThen() and the "offset = 0". I'd be OK with deleting the code, but it just feels like someone had it on a todo list to come back to some day According to the comment in the code: void virTimeFieldsThen(unsigned long long when, struct tm *fields) { /* This code is taken from GLibC under terms of LGPLv2+ */ long int days, rem, y; it was borrowed from glibc. AFAIK we decided to always use GMT in our time stamps and everywhere so it'll be probably better just to delete the code and note that a part is missing. I doubt that anyone will be adding it later.
src/util/virtime.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/util/virtime.c b/src/util/virtime.c index 9fefb67..99c7cf6 100644 --- a/src/util/virtime.c +++ b/src/util/virtime.c @@ -135,10 +135,12 @@ void virTimeFieldsThen(unsigned long long when, struct tm *fields) days = whenSecs / SECS_PER_DAY; rem = whenSecs % SECS_PER_DAY; rem += offset; + /* coverity[dead_error_condition] - when offset is calculated remove this */ while (rem < 0) { rem += SECS_PER_DAY; --days; } + /* coverity[dead_error_condition] - when offset is calculated remove this */ while (rem >= SECS_PER_DAY) { rem -= SECS_PER_DAY; ++days;
Anyways, if somebody speaks against deleting the part, then ACK to this approach. Peter