[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3] xen/arm: domain: Fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 8.7 violation
- To: Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:41:31 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=2; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 63.35.35.123) smtp.rcpttodomain=lists.xenproject.org smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=none pct=100) action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; arc=pass (0 oda=1 ltdi=1 spf=[1,1,smtp.mailfrom=arm.com] dkim=[1,1,header.d=arm.com] dmarc=[1,1,header.from=arm.com])
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=stvcMF83vcZQt51gnH9t9FsnHibwpgZKyttr3IFmHrs=; b=f1Md6qp7JWF1EEJNeq9wgC+Y5/dlcUUQj/9imgl+ZDMOEL1U1M8viS0DfuHQf3lE/tpOplxtsQ1/AikiaVho2kIBVaP28p+Sm0O6Wp1ujkq/VDF2KaLoOB7R5kYuqdwR8c3UX7cUPm5fcGBHD0qr+woX61AvnzKxv587FGBp2T2FTf3uXA7+0JVLkLeoBi2eEvSpn5T/i69uquDauGwceBh32nO+4Wz6wc0zne69XyIomlmioWpCF7Ltah8hZiGf9v8o1TAXjKUj7GTXsK4roKSkaJfhzxrgKV4SIvTAUmc/qNn6BKvCXxFA1jqM8TN7Fs4/ycclFM75kIP4JMgBpg==
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=stvcMF83vcZQt51gnH9t9FsnHibwpgZKyttr3IFmHrs=; b=ACmHZ0aauEX75Ako8wgbViqegEoODFirqZrwdkJL6yu1FDFrGIP8SPdc386Of2mVIGkKTLgEk1k66Loi4H9v6nD1FgPWZ/+PHGJNwFIzLR9CYagynD2HoFFJyWyEBrkiejmSMvd1Ehbrxi133qSmnGRzWqnsYZw0UFRLFkrAjogUbXf1SEO+GCrmRpVUtrjFn3VtqWypYNUkkzXdq1CXrcmJweUaySE5egzOjydEdyGamxDWDMxHNgTb1kMpFaiK7tfaVOKMf7CT8Ve5KTgl8nYDI1IBrEfnuaw1zEIQEfRQahd2ouO4NprwMTN7i7JV8jfoR4MX2bjYNUxCc0+2gA==
- Arc-seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=pass; b=MECUbBZs6OsPZTg/+QBNv5+oGY/5BO2gf8Ku9tgGMgMgJuQaFMnb9QCfo33RY5DtfSNW3IG3e++20tuNVt3U2asMrbPr1MNzGjQYrinwQEPBbfL6XWE0adHvSs9IyU0Pjc9fvEVD0+FxWvtaluoHsnfswGj2y6vUmjM4ms4TfYE251ZGxRP272gv4B6MMSlFHcVz/Ykk9mcTPNKw+lLAouvza4+G7frUJAG10iLZlfm7metx8jiABvZt5SdPKr94KooTBmEPQenDRY1GD2VasbXjkdJoEyPVkOGaEYtgsUmvlIh4PclIrEBXl7Y9wgppkIQBbig1Q8lC44amRNciPw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=cjHwB7epAr9Qlq/0OOxfdCOWDTHydIzWHS6yA+zveU0EpPHrENBKaDrheQuGZoLAcHtdhr0ACr0t4e/KcNIonUtJv65AahSDt6qD8OpbQ0mZF2adTRsM4RWn2b0xQaXZJr2+qsMGxzJ1MFofa8CkEe5bZh/VetX5HHdwTjIyb0cFK+OhmOmTcDZNrWn5ClaqjJ2KThrkfxY186HjVyrkwdkpA1JmRhQldjhijf6pHHSCKkS6/4G0M/zIJoDqEYJgJad9iyU0aZgqF5VcccLMt6GjNuKl+ZfjSb0mUoORk5RXwPqI38Qyf46VpnGLzD/TA6VePo4g6IQfwCYLfZrF/g==
- Authentication-results-original: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:42:06 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Nodisclaimer: true
- Original-authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=arm.com;
- Thread-index: AQHYop4zbGg59w4f8UOqc93PZGjmt62U4voAgAABWICAAHhDgA==
- Thread-topic: [PATCH v3] xen/arm: domain: Fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 8.7 violation
Hi Xenia,
> On 29 Jul 2022, at 07:31, Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 7/29/22 09:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.07.2022 18:21, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
>>> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static void do_idle(void)
>>> rcu_idle_exit(cpu);
>>> }
>>> -void idle_loop(void)
>>> +static void idle_loop(void)
>> While you're adding "noreturn" below, shouldn't this one be marked so
>> as well? Preferably with the addition:
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Yes, but I was not sure if this should go in this patch or in a separate one.
As you modify the function to make it static, I think it is ok to also add the
noreturn in the same patch.
With that done, you can add my:
Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>
Cheers
Bertrand
>
> --
> Xenia
|
