Re: [XEN PATCH 5/5] x86: make parameter names of function declarations consistent

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/06/2023 8:36 am, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Hello Stefano,
>
> On 29/06/23 21:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>> Change the parameter names of function declarations to be consistent
>>> with the names used in the corresponding function definitions
>>> so as to fix violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h
>>> b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h
>>> index d07fcb2bc9..24bf409d8f 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/vmx/vmcs.h
>>> @@ -656,10 +656,10 @@ bool vmx_msr_is_intercepted(struct
>>> vmx_msr_bitmap *msr_bitmap,
>>>                               unsigned int msr, bool is_write)
>>> __nonnull(1);
>>>   void virtual_vmcs_enter(const struct vcpu *);
>>>   void virtual_vmcs_exit(const struct vcpu *);
>>> -u64 virtual_vmcs_vmread(const struct vcpu *, u32 encoding);
>>> +u64 virtual_vmcs_vmread(const struct vcpu *, u32 vmcs_encoding);
>>
>> Shouldn't the first parameter be "v" to match the definition?
>>
>> Or is that a different MISRA C rule?
>
> This is a violation of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2:
> "function types shall be in prototype form with named parameters".
> However, I can propose a new patch version to fix it as well.

As a general note - if you need to make multiple changes like this, it's
far better to do them as a single patch.

The end result tends to be easier to review, and it reduces the textural
dependencies between the various patches floating about on list.

~Andrew