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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 27.07.2023 13:02, Federico Serafini wrote:
> 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.

It's not entirely clear to me what 2 means, as I wouldn't expect you
intend to deal with "violations" which we may decide aren't any in
out world.

Jan