[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v3 1/2] x86/vmsi: rename variables to address MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:55:52 +0200
- Cc: sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, michal.orzel@xxxxxxx, xenia.ragiadakou@xxxxxxx, ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx, consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 13:55:56 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
@@ -462,7 +462,7 @@ static void del_msixtbl_entry(struct
msixtbl_entry
*entry)
int msixtbl_pt_register(struct domain *d, struct pirq *pirq,
uint64_t
gtable)
{
- struct irq_desc *irq_desc;
+ struct irq_desc *irqd;
This one indeed wants renaming, but then - consistent within the file
-
to "desc". At least that's my view.
Well, but having
struct irq_desc *desc;
struct msi_desc *msi_desc;
and then using them both within the function doesn't seem that
readable,
You have a point there, yes. Still I'd then probably follow up with a
change to rename msi_desc -> msi (and I say this despite seeing that
farther down in the file "msi" is also used for another pointer type
variables/parameters). But with what you say in mind I'd also be okay
with you renaming to irqd where renaming is needed, but leaving "desc"
alone.
Jan
I'll go for the latter (it's quicker) as a separate patch, since
hopefully the other patch
in the series can go in unmodified.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
|
