[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v2 3/3] xen: fix violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 3.1
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:00:28 +0200
- Cc: michal.orzel@xxxxxxx, xenia.ragiadakou@xxxxxxx, ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx, consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:00:49 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 19/06/23 12:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.06.2023 11:56, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c
+++ b/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c
@@ -140,9 +140,6 @@ static inline void MAPPING_SEARCH(unsigned long *r, int
*fl, int *sl)
*fl = flsl(*r) - 1;
*sl = (*r >> (*fl - MAX_LOG2_SLI)) - MAX_SLI;
*fl -= FLI_OFFSET;
- /*if ((*fl -= FLI_OFFSET) < 0) // FL will be always >0!
- *fl = *sl = 0;
- */
*r &= ~t;
}
}
As indicated before, I don't think simply dropping the commented out code
is appropriate here. Personally I'd prefer if it was kept (using #if/#else),
but I'd also be okay with replacing it by a respective assertion. That said,
if other maintainers think this is the way to go, then I don't mean to
stand in the way.
As Andrew Cooper suggested in the previous patch revision
(https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/6bac57d5-c30e-f763-3abe-b3f335f366f7@xxxxxxxx/T/#m5722285215bb30d7f1202b9921e2c92d5ea98d6a),
I removed the commented-out code, since it contains unused logic, but I
would be okay with replacing it with an assertion, if you think it's better.
Regards,
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
|
