Re: [XEN PATCH 2/3] xen/arm: irq: address violations of MISRA C: 2012 Rules 8.2 and 8.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jan, Stefano,

On 25/07/23 21:32, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 24.07.2023 19:50, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > @@ -182,7 +182,8 @@ void irq_set_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, const 
> > > cpumask_t *cpu_mask)
> > >   }
> > >   
> > >   int request_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int irqflags,
> > > -                void (*handler)(int, void *, struct cpu_user_regs *),
> > > +                void (*handler)(int irq, void *dev_id,
> > > +                                struct cpu_user_regs *regs),
> > >                   const char *devname, void *dev_id)
> > >   {
> > Before we accept patches, don't we need to first settle on whether to
> > apply the rule(s) also to function type declarations (and not just
> > ordinary prototypes)?
> Yes, in retrospect we should have found agreement on this issue this
> morning but I forgot to bring it up :-(  Ooops.
>
> (I think the agreement was to change the function type declarations too,
> that's why docs/misra/rules.rst doesn't have a note about this, but I
> don't want to make assumptions as I am not certain.)
I have ready a patch for violations of rules 8.2 and 8.3 in
xen/include/xen/iommu.h.
I am talking about this, in this IRQ thread, because I think the 
following two options also apply for an eventual v2 patch for the IRQ 
module, until a decision about rule 8.2 and function pointers is taken:
1) Split patches and submit only the changes *not* involving function
   pointers.
2) In the meantime that you make a decision,
   I submit patches thus addressing the existing violations.

I personally prefer the second one, but please let me know what you
think.

Regards
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)