[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH v2 00/10] address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10
Hi, On 25/10/2023 09:18, Jan Beulich wrote: Thanks for providing some details. The proposal for private headers make sense. For arch/.../include/asm/ headers, I would strongly prefer if we use prefix them with ASM_*.On 24.10.2023 21:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:If I understood correctly I am fine with that. To make sure we are all on the same page, can you provide a couple of samples?Taking the earlier example, instead of DRIVERS_PASSTHROUGH_VTD_DMAR_H it would then be VTD_DMAR_H. arch/x86/pv/mm.h would use PV_MM_H, but then you can already see that a hypothetical arch/x86/mm.h would use X86_MM_H, thus colliding with what your proposal would also yield for arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h. So maybe private header guards should come with e.g. a trailing underscore? Or double underscores as component separators, where .../include/... use only single underscores? Or headers in arch/*/include/asm/ use ASM_<name>_H (i.e. not making the architecture explicit in the guard name, on the grounds that headers from multiple architectures shouldn't be included at the same time)? As a side note, I am guessing for asm-generic, we would want to use ASM_GENERIC_* for the guard prefix. Is that correct? Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |