Re: [XEN PATCH 7/8] x86/i8259: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.08.2023 16:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >>> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function
> >>> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the
> >>> violation of Rule 8.4.
> >>>
> >>> No functional change.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 +
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c
> >>> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644
> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c
> >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c
> >>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> >>>  #include <xen/delay.h>
> >>>  #include <asm/apic.h>
> >>>  #include <asm/asm_defns.h>
> >>> +#include <asm/setup.h>
> >>>  #include <io_ports.h>
> >>>  #include <irq_vectors.h>
> >>
> >> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months:
> >> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html
> > 
> > So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning 
> > it
> > in the additional commit context of course)?
> 
> I would prefer using the much older patch, but of course this requires
> someone providing R-b or A-b.

Hi Jan, normally I'd be happy to do that but that patch makes other
changes that I don't feel confident enough to Ack.

For instance:

+    for ( offs = 0, i = pic_alias_mask & -pic_alias_mask ?: 2;
+          offs <= pic_alias_mask; offs += i )

pic_alias_mask is declared as unsigned int.