Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:10:30 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Check negative value returned by
 cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()
Message-ID: <20180212104030.GV28462@vireshk-i7>
References: <1518430876-24464-1-git-send-email-shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180212102900.GU28462@vireshk-i7>
 <14e2fe70-7628-4377-664d-3c4b0071e08d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <14e2fe70-7628-4377-664d-3c4b0071e08d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12-02-18, 16:03, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> I agree too. There is no way we can get -1 with initialized cpu frequency table.
> We don't initialize powernv-cpufreq if we don't have valid CPU frequency
> entries. Is there any other way to suppress the Coverity tool warning apart from
> ignoring it?

So IIUC, this warning is generated by an external tool after static
analysis of the code ?

If yes, then just ignore the warning. We shouldn't try fixing the
kernel because a tool isn't smart enough to catch intentional
ignorance of the return value here.

-- 
viresh