Re: [XEN PATCH v2] xen/string: add missing parameter names

[Luca Fancellu <Luca.Fancellu@xxxxxxx>]

> On 3 Aug 2023, at 12:46, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Luca,
> 
> On 03/08/2023 11:28, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 3 Aug 2023, at 09:26, Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Add missing parameter names to address violation of MISRA C:2012
>>> rule 8.2 ("Function types shall be in prototype form with named
>>> parameters").
>>> 
>>> No functional changes.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>  - memset() adjusted.
>>> ---
>>> xen/include/xen/string.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/string.h b/xen/include/xen/string.h
>>> index b4d2217a96..e91e3112e0 100644
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/string.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/string.h
>>> @@ -12,27 +12,27 @@
>>> #define strncpy __xen_has_no_strncpy__
>>> #define strncat __xen_has_no_strncat__
>>> 
>>> -size_t strlcpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
>>> -size_t strlcat(char *, const char *, size_t);
>>> -int strcmp(const char *, const char *);
>>> -int strncmp(const char *, const char *, size_t);
>>> -int strcasecmp(const char *, const char *);
>>> -int strncasecmp(const char *, const char *, size_t);
>>> -char *strchr(const char *, int);
>>> -char *strrchr(const char *, int);
>>> -char *strstr(const char *, const char *);
>>> -size_t strlen(const char *);
>>> -size_t strnlen(const char *, size_t);
>>> -char *strpbrk(const char *, const char *);
>>> -char *strsep(char **, const char *);
>>> -size_t strspn(const char *, const char *);
>>> -
>>> -void *memset(void *, int, size_t);
>>> -void *memcpy(void *, const void *, size_t);
>>> -void *memmove(void *, const void *, size_t);
>>> -int memcmp(const void *, const void *, size_t);
>>> -void *memchr(const void *, int, size_t);
>>> -void *memchr_inv(const void *, int, size_t);
>>> +size_t strlcpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t size);
>>> +size_t strlcat(char *dest, const char *src, size_t size);
>>> +int strcmp(const char *cs, const char *ct);
>>> +int strncmp(const char *cs, const char *ct, size_t count);
>>> +int strcasecmp(const char *s1, const char *s2);
>>> +int strncasecmp(const char *s1, const char *s2, size_t len);
>>> +char *strchr(const char *s, int c);
>>> +char *strrchr(const char *s, int c);
>>> +char *strstr(const char *s1, const char *s2);
>>> +size_t strlen(const char *s);
>>> +size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t count);
>>> +char *strpbrk(const char *cs, const char *ct);
>>> +char *strsep(char **s, const char *ct);
>>> +size_t strspn(const char *s, const char *accept);
>>> +
>>> +void *memset(void *s, int c, size_t count);
>>> +void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
>> There is a comment in arch/arm/rm32/lib/memcpy.S with this:
>> /* Prototype: void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n); */
>>> +void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
>> There is a comment in arch/arm/rm32/lib/memmove.S with this:
>>  * Prototype: void *memmove(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n);
>>> +int memcmp(const void *cs, const void *ct, size_t count);
>>> +void *memchr(const void *s, int c, size_t n);
>>> +void *memchr_inv(const void *s, int c, size_t n);
>> @Stefano: would it make sense to remove it as part of this patch or maybe 
>> not?
> 
> They are a verbatim copy of the Linux code. So I would rather no touch it.

Oh I see! Thank you for pointing that out, then I’m wondering if it’s there a 
reason why we
are using ‘count’ instead of ’n’ as third parameter name, I know Stefano 
suggested that, so
It’s just a curiosity. Maybe it’s for clarity?

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Julien Grall