Re: [XEN PATCH v2] xen/sched: mechanical renaming to address MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 25/07/23 16:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.07.2023 11:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > @@ -99,14 +99,15 @@ static void sched_set_affinity(
> >       struct sched_unit *unit, const cpumask_t *hard, const cpumask_t *soft);
> >   
> >   static struct sched_resource *cf_check
> > -sched_idle_res_pick(const struct scheduler *ops, const struct sched_unit *unit)
> > +sched_idle_res_pick(
> > +    const struct scheduler *ops, const struct sched_unit *unit)
> >   {
> >       return unit->res;
> >   }
> >   
> >   static void *cf_check
> > -sched_idle_alloc_udata(const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *unit,
> > -                       void *dd)
> > +sched_idle_alloc_udata(
> > +    const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *unit, void *dd)
> >   {
> >       /* Any non-NULL pointer is fine here. */
> >       return ZERO_BLOCK_PTR;
> These look like stray changes, presumably resulting from you not fully
> undoing earlier changes.
You're right, they were the byproduct of an earlier edit to this patch.

> > --- a/xen/common/sched/credit2.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/sched/credit2.c
> > @@ -3809,7 +3809,8 @@ csched2_dump(const struct scheduler *ops)
> >       struct list_head *iter_sdom;
> >       struct csched2_private *prv = csched2_priv(ops);
> >       unsigned long flags;
> > -    unsigned int j, loop;
> > +    unsigned int loop;
> > +    int j;
> This looks like a stray change too, just that it's unclear where it is
> coming from.
I thought I added a note to the commit, but I probably did some mistake.
That's why I changed it:

Note: local variable 'j' in xen/common/sched/credit2.c:3888' should
probably be unsigned as well, but I saw while editing the patch
that it's used as a parameter to 'dump_pcpu', which takes an int.
Changing the types of parameters used in these calls is
probably a good target for another patch, as it's not relevant
to Rule 5.3

> > @@ -3884,7 +3885,7 @@ csched2_dump(const struct scheduler *ops)
> >       list_for_each_entry ( rqd, &prv->rql, rql )
> >       {
> >           struct list_head *iter, *runq = &rqd->runq;
> > -        int loop = 0;
> > +        loop = 0;
> >   
> >           /* We need the lock to scan the runqueue. */
> >           spin_lock(&rqd->lock);
> With the switch from declaration to statement, a blank line wants
> inserting (to separate the remaining declaration from the
> statements).
Ok

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)