Re: Functions _spin_lock_cb() and handle_ro_raz()

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.06.2023 15:08, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am working on the violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.10,
> whose headline says:
> "An inline function shall be declared with the static storage class".
> 
> For both ARM64 and X86_64 builds,
> function _spin_lock_cb() defined in spinlock.c violates the rule.
> Such function is declared in spinlock.h without
> the inline function specifier: are there any reasons to do this?

Since this function was mentioned elsewhere already, I'm afraid I
have to be a little blunt and ask back: Did you check the history
of the function. Yes, it is intentional to be that way, for the
function to be inlined into _spin_lock(), and for it to also be
available for external callers (we have just one right now, but
that could change).

> What about solving the violation by moving the function definition in
> spinlock.h and declaring it as static inline?

Did you try whether that would work at least purely mechanically?
I'm afraid you'll find that it doesn't, because of LOCK_PROFILE_*
being unavailable then. Yet we also don't want to expose all that
in the header.

In the earlier context I did suggest already to make the function
an always-inline one in spinlock.c, under a slightly altered name,
and then have _spin_lock_cb() be a trivial wrapper just like
_spin_lock() is. I guess best is going to be if I make and post a
patch ...

Jan