Re: [PATCH] xen/char: imx-lpuart: Fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 20.7 violation

[Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 8/2/22 14:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.08.2022 09:54, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> > --- a/xen/drivers/char/imx-lpuart.c
> > +++ b/xen/drivers/char/imx-lpuart.c
> > @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
> >   #include <asm/imx-lpuart.h>
> >   #include <asm/io.h>
> >   
> > -#define imx_lpuart_read(uart, off)       readl((uart)->regs + off)
> > -#define imx_lpuart_write(uart, off, val) writel((val), (uart)->regs + off)
> > +#define imx_lpuart_read(uart, off)       readl((uart)->regs + (off))
> > +#define imx_lpuart_write(uart, off, val) writel((val), (uart)->regs + (off))
> As elsewhere before I think at the same time you want to drop the
> parentheses from the single use of "val".
In general I do not want to include irrelevant changes in my patches.
Also, here, I do not want to drop the parentheses from val because the 
removal of the parentheses
- consists a violation of the rule 20.7
- would allow the following to compile
#define VAL x, y, z);(
imx_lpuart_write(uart, off, VAL)
- is not justifiable (i.e does not fix a bug, does not result in more 
readable code etc)
I understand that the rest of the community does not agree with adding 
parentheses around macro parameters used as function arguments and as 
the right-side operand of the assignment operator, but I consider them 
useful and I do not want to remove them myself. Maybe somebody else from 
the community could do that.
Also, these exceptions would be good to be mentioned in the rules.rst. 
So, that other contributors do not try to fix relevant warnings.
--
Xenia