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

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 25/10/2023 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.10.2023 17:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 25/10/2023 09:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > 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)?
> > 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_*.
> >
> > As a side note, I am guessing for asm-generic, we would want to use
> > ASM_GENERIC_* for the guard prefix. Is that correct?
> That was an assumption I was working from, yes. Could also be just
> GENERIC_ afaic.
Thanks for the confirmation. I am fine with either GENERIC_ or ASM_GENERIC_.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall