Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: traps: fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 8.7 violation

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 04/07/2022 09:28, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > On 4 Jul 2022, at 09:25, Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 4 Jul 2022, at 09:06, Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/4/22 10:58, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > > > > > I am not 100% sure about this patch.
> > > > > > I think show_stack() should be declared the same way as show_registers().
> > > > > > So either both of them will be declared with external linkage or both of them
> > > > > > will be declared with internal linkage.
> > > > > I think that those 2 should be declared with external linkage with a comment
> > > > > explaining why they are. For me those are useful when developing or debugging
> > > > > and I sometime call those to force dumping the status.
> > > > > So I would vote to keep the external linkage.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I decided to declare both of them static because they are referenced only in
> > > > > > traps.c but I could have, also, add the declaration of show_stack() in
> > > > > > asm/processor.h header instead. Rule 8.7 is advisory.
> > > > > As said I would vote for external linkage here but would be nice to have other
> > > > > developers view on this.
> > > > In addition to this, if we don’t want to provide a justification for those, 
> > > > since they seems to me
> > > > code related to debugging they can be removed from “production” code in some 
> > > > way.
> > > Rule 8.7 is advisory, so I think that formal justification of deviations is not 
> > > necessary.
> > Yes that is true, in that case we would only need to document it without a 
> > formal justification, however
> > if the codebase doesn’t include them (because not in production code) I guess the 
> > problem doesn’t exist.
> Having the production code using static and the non production using external 
> linkage would be kind of weird here.
> I think having them always with external linkage with a justification is the 
> cleanest way.
+1 this is what I was going to answer :).

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall