RE: Xen release announcement and Virtio/Fusa

[Artem Mygaiev <Artem_Mygaiev@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bertrand, Stefano


From: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx> 
>> On 24 Nov 2021, at 22:08, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> Hi Artem/Stefano
>>>
>>> Anything we could say on work being done around Virtio and Xen since last 
>>> Xen release that would be nice to add to Xen release announcement ?
>>>
>>> For reference here is what was said for previous Xen release:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://xenproject.org/2021/04/08/xen-project-hypervisor-4-15/__;!!GF_29dbcQIUBPA!mT1MQJp3qwTD-28VxKf3_d-j5tbKLrTrJsxYLYOXkFDwkMD4Nk0_p6K2IGaKUuLO8g$
>>>  [xenproject[.]org]
>>>
>>> For Fusa I would suggest to say the following:
>>>
>>> Functional Safety Update
>>> The working group has been analysing all MISRA rules and started to define 
>>> a list of possible rules followed or to be followed by Xen in the future.
>>> Several static code analysers have also been evaluated, both commercial and 
>>> open source, to do a first analysis of the non MISRA compliances in Xen and 
>>> also find a way for developers to check theirs patches in the future before 
>>> upstreaming.
>>> This works has been done in close collaboration with the Zephyr project and 
>>> the MISRA consortium.
>>>
>>> @Stefano/Artem: please comment/complete/fix
>>
>> Thanks Bertrand for taking a stab at it.
>
>You are welcome

+1, good to post it to release!

>>
>> In collaboration with the Zephyr project and the MISRA consortium, the
>> Xen FuSa Special Interest Group analyzed MISRA C rules in depth and
>> defined a subset of rules that apply to Xen and will be tackled with
>> the community. The SIG evaluated several static code analyzers to scan
>> the Xen code base for MISRA C violations. The team enhanced the Xen
>> build system with the ability to run open source MISRA C checkers as
>> part of the Xen build, so that for future releases Xen contributors will
>> be able to easily improve the quality of their patches.
>
> Far better but we did not upstream my patch to add cppcheck. Is it ok to say 
> it like that ?

I think its ok since its about "future releases", and we are surely planning to 
add cppcheck or similar tool

 -- Artem