Re: [XEN PATCH v2 00/10] address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10

[Simone Ballarin <simone.ballarin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/09/23 10:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.09.2023 11:36, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> > Add or move inclusion guards to address violations of
> > MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10 ("Precautions shall be taken in order
> > to prevent the contents of a header file being included more than
> > once").
> >
> > Inclusion guards must appear at the beginning of the headers
> > (comments are permitted anywhere) and the #if directive cannot
> > be used for other checks.
> >
> > Simone Ballarin (10):
> >    misra: add deviation for headers that explicitly avoid guards
> >    misra: modify deviations for empty and generated headers
> >    misra: add deviations for direct inclusion guards
> >    xen/arm: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    xen/x86: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    x86/EFI: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    xen/common: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    xen/efi: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    xen: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> >    x86/asm: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
> Just to mention it here again for the entire series, seeing that despite
> my earlier comments to this effect a few R-b have arrived: If private
> headers need to gain guards (for, imo, no real reason), we first need to
> settle on a naming scheme for these guards, such that guards used in
> private headers aren't at risk of colliding with ones used headers
> living in one of the usual include directories. IOW imo fair parts of
> this series may need redoing.
>
> Jan
My proposal is:
- the relative path from "xen/arch" for files in this directory
  (i.e. X86_X86_X86_MMCONFIG_H for "xen/arch/x86/x86_64/mmconfig.h";
- for the others, the entire path.

What do you think?

--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.

Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)