Re: [XEN PATCH] xen/hypercalls: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14/08/23 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.08.2023 00:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Aug 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > --- a/xen/include/hypercall-defs.c
> > > +++ b/xen/include/hypercall-defs.c
> > > @@ -107,11 +107,16 @@ defhandle: physdev_op_compat_t
> > >   prefix: do PREFIX_hvm PREFIX_compat PREFIX_do_arm
> > >   physdev_op(int cmd, void *arg)
> > >   
> > > -prefix: do PREFIX_hvm PREFIX_compat
> > > +prefix: do PREFIX_hvm
> > >   #if defined(CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE) || defined(CONFIG_PV_SHIM)
> > >   grant_table_op(unsigned int cmd, void *uop, unsigned int count)
> > >   #endif
> > >   
> > > +prefix: PREFIX_compat
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_GRANT_TABLE) || defined(CONFIG_PV_SHIM)
> > > +grant_table_op(unsigned int cmd, void *cmp_uop, unsigned int count)
> > > +#endif
> > Everything checks out, so:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The other changes are uncontroversial. This one about splitting out the
> > compat version of grant_table_op is not great. I wonder if it would be
> > better to rename cmp_uop to uop in xen/common/compat/grant_table.c. I'll
> > let Jan and the others decide I am OK either way.
> Would there be anything wrong with instead renaming compat_grant_table_op()'s
> respective parameter?
>
> Jan
As far as I know, there would be nothing wrong with MISRA.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)