Re: [XEN PATCH][for-4.19 1/2] xen: introduce a deviation for Rule 11.9

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/10/2023 11:27, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/10/2023 09:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > The constant 0 is used instead of NULL in '__ACCESS_ONCE' as a
> > compile-time check to detect non-scalar types; its usage for this
> > purpose is documented in rules.rst as an exception.
> Documenting ACCESS_ONCE() in rules.rst seems a bit odd. I am guessing
> that other analysis tool may point out the same error and therefore it
> would seem more appropriate to use a deviation.
>
> This would also avoid having a specific rule in the Eclair
> configuration for __ACCESS_ONCE().
I figured a single accepted use would benefit from an explicit 
exclusion.
I can rework it to use an in-code comment to deviate, in whatever form 
that comment may be
(still with some bits of ECLAIR-specific configuration anyway, as 
discussed for R2.1).
> > Furthermore, the 'access_field' and 'typeof_field' macros are
> > introduced as a general way to deal with accesses to structs
> > without declaring a struct variable.
> >
> > Cleanup of spurious MISRA deviations.
> Please don't do that. This is making the review of the patches a lot
> more complicated because there are unrelated changes (see [1]).
>
> We often allow simple clean-up if they are in the context. But this is
> not the case here.
Understood. There will be a separate MISRA deviations cleanup/update 
patch anyway,
so these can be included there.


> [1] 
> https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Project_Patches#What_is_in_a_patch_series.3F
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)