Re: [XEN PATCH 1/4] xen/arm: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 13.1

[Simone Ballarin <simone.ballarin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/10/23 10:28, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 19/10/2023 19:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > We usually use this trick when 'current' is used multiple time to save
> > > > process (using 'current' is not cost free). But in this case, this is
> > > > renaming without any apparent benefits.
> > > >
> > > > If we wanted to go down this route, then this would likely want a 
> > > > comment.
> > > > At which point we should just deviate.
> > > >
> > > > I will have a think if there are something else we can do. Could we 
> > > > consider
> > > > to not address it for now?
> > > I totally agree.
> > I am wondering if we could deviate "current" because even with the
> > implementation using volatile we know it doesn't have "side effects" in
> > the sense of changing things for other code outside the function.
> I will let Simone to confirm whether it is possible to do it from a 
> technical point of view.
Yes, it is possible.
> Leaving the technical part aside, is the only violations are the one in 
> this patch? If so, I don't think it makes sense to deviate 'current' 
> globally. It would be better to have local deviations.
> Cheers,
For this specific case I agree in using a local deviation.
In the next version of the patch, I will use a SAF comment.

--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.

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