Re: [PATCH v2] docs/misra: add exceptions to rules

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.08.2023 03:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> 
> During the discussions that led to the acceptable of the Rules, we

Nit: acceptance

> decided on a few exceptions that were not properly recorded in
> rules.rst. Other times, the exceptions were decided later when it came
> to enabling a rule in ECLAIR.
> 
> Either way, update rules.rst with appropriate notes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
>[...]
> @@ -239,13 +256,16 @@ maintainers if you want to suggest a change.
>       - Required
>       - All declarations of an object or function shall use the same
>         names and type qualifiers
> -     -
> +     - The type ret_t maybe be deliberately used and defined as int or
> +       long depending on the type of guest to service
>  
>     * - `Rule 8.4 
> <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_08_04.c>`_
>       - Required
>       - A compatible declaration shall be visible when an object or
>         function with external linkage is defined
> -     -
> +     - Allowed exceptions: asm-offsets.c (definitions for asm modules
> +       not called from C code), gcov_base.c (definitions only used in
> +       non-release builds)

Doesn't this want to be

     - Allowed exceptions: asm-offsets.c, definitions for asm modules
       not called from C code, and gcov_base.c (definitions only used in
       non-release builds)

? As to coverage: Why "only used in non-release builds"? COVERAGE doesn't
depend on DEBUG, and people may actually want to enable it for release
builds. Just likely not for production ones.

If you agree with and make respective adjustments:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan