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

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 12:52, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > > 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?
> 
> I guess because the generic implementation of memset (see xen/lib/memset.c) is
> using 'count' rather than 'n'.

Yep


> Given what Andrew said, I would say we should rename the parameter to 'n'.

Yes, either way works. I was only trying to be consistent with
xen/lib/memset.c. It is also fine to change xen/lib/memset.c instead.