Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: fixed violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 3.1

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

First of all - please don't drop Cc-s when replying, unless you have a
specific reason to.

On 13.06.2023 11:56, nicola wrote:
> On 13/06/23 10:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> If you split this to 4 patches, leaving the URL proposal in just
>> the cover letter, then I think this one change (with the adjustments)
>> could go in right away. Similarly I expect the arm64/flushtlb.h
>> change could be ack-ed right away by an Arm maintainer.
> Ok. I do not understand what you mean by "leaving the URL proposal in 
> just the cover letter". Which URL?

In your description you had a proposal to deviate the // occurring
in URLs. The latest when splitting the patch, this doesn't belong
into any of the patches anymore, but just in the cover letter.

>> Here "propose" is appropriate in the description, as this is something 
>> the patch does not do. Further down, however, you mean to describe 
>> what the patch does, not what an eventual patch might do.
>>
> To my knowledge, there is not a standard format to define a project 
> deviation for a certain MISRA rule in Xen right now (this can also be 
> discussed in a separate thread). To clarify, I meant to describe why I 
> wasn't addressing these violations in the patch (they are the vast 
> majority, but they do not have any implication w.r.t. functional safety 
> and can therefore be safely deviated with an appropriate written 
> justification).

And as said, for what you're not doing in the patch, using "propose"
is quite fine (as per above, whether that actually belongs in the
description is another question). I view the word as inapplicable
though when you describe what you're actually doing in a patch. But
I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong here.

Jan