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

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.10.2023 23:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> 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_.
> > 
> > OK. So in summary:
> > - arch/.../include/asm/ headers would use ASM_<filename>_H
> > - private headers would use <dir>_<filename>_H
> > - asm-generic headers would use ASM_GENERIC_<filename>_H
> > 
> > If that's agreed, we can move forward with the patch following this
> > scheme.
> 
> FTAOD - just as long as <dir> is clarified to mean only the leaf-most
> directory component (assuming we're still talking about the most
> recently proposed scheme and we deem the risk of collisions low enough
> there).

Yes, that's what I meant.