Re: [XEN PATCH 02/10] arm/cpufeature: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 13/10/2023 16:24, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Add missing parameter names, no functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   xen/arch/arm/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/cpufeature.h 
> b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 8011076b8c..41e97c23dd 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ static inline void cpus_set_cap(unsigned int num)
>   struct arm_cpu_capabilities {
>       const char *desc;
>       u16 capability;
> -    bool (*matches)(const struct arm_cpu_capabilities *);
> -    int (*enable)(void *); /* Called on every active CPUs */
> +    bool (*matches)(const struct arm_cpu_capabilities *caps);
> +    int (*enable)(void *ptr); /* Called on every active CPUs */
How did you come up with the name? The void * seems to be named 'data' 
by the declaration and I think we should be consistent, otherwise this 
is defeating the spirit of MISRA (assuming this is not a violation).
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall