Re: [XEN PATCH 02/11] x86: move declarations to address MISRA C:2012 Rule 2.1

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 11:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 03.08.2023 04:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > @@ -1169,8 +1170,6 @@ static void cf_check irq_guest_eoi_timer_fn(void
> > > > *data)
> > > > 
> > > >      switch ( action->ack_type )
> > > >      {
> > > > -        cpumask_t *cpu_eoi_map;
> > > 
> > > It is only used by case ACKTYPE_EOI so it can be moved there (with a new
> > > block):
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     case ACKTYPE_EOI:
> > >     {
> > >         cpumask_t *cpu_eoi_map = this_cpu(scratch_cpumask);
> > >         cpumask_copy(cpu_eoi_map, action->cpu_eoi_map);
> > >         spin_unlock_irq(&desc->lock);
> > >         on_selected_cpus(cpu_eoi_map, set_eoi_ready, desc, 0);
> > >         return;
> > >     }
> > >     }
> > 
> > This pattern (two closing braces at the same level) is why switch scope
> > variable declarations were introduced (at least as far as introductions
> > by me go). If switch scope variables aren't okay (which I continue to
> > consider questionable), then this stylistic aspect needs sorting first
> > (if everyone else thinks the above style is okay - with the missing
> > blank line inserted -, then so be it).
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> Actually, they can be deviated because they don't result in wrong code being
> generated.
> This, modulo the review comments received, is what most of the code would look
> like if
> they weren't, with the biggest pain point being that in many cases the choice
> is either
> the pattern with blocks for certain clauses or moving them in the enclosing
> scope, which may
> be several hundred lines above. If there's agreement on deviating them, I can
> drop the patches
> dealing with switches and do a v2 with just the other modifications.

I think we should deviate them. Good idea to remove them in v2.