[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH 5/5] x86: make parameter names of function declarations consistent
On 30/06/23 16:21, Andrew Cooper wrote: 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 Hello Andrew, I will try to do it. Regards -- Federico Serafini, M.Sc. Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |