Re: [XEN PATCH] xen/set_{c,p}x_pminfo: address violations od MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/10/23 09:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 27.10.2023 01:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > @@ -675,16 +673,16 @@ static int __init cpufreq_cmdline_parse(const char *s, 
> > > const char *e)
> > >   static int cf_check cpu_callback(
> > >       struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> > >   {
> > > -    unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> > > +    unsigned int acpi_id = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> > >   
> > >       switch ( action )
> > >       {
> > >       case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> > >       case CPU_ONLINE:
> > > -        (void)cpufreq_add_cpu(cpu);
> > > +        (void)cpufreq_add_cpu(acpi_id);
> > >           break;
> > >       case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> > > -        (void)cpufreq_del_cpu(cpu);
> > > +        (void)cpufreq_del_cpu(acpi_id);
> > >           break;
> > >       default:
> > >           break;
> > I take you made these changes to cpu_callback for consistency, not
> > because they are required? Everything else makes sense so:
> I'm sorry, but no, these changes are not only not required, they're
> outright wrong. CPU callbacks never talk in terms of ACPI IDs. The
> two functions called also aren't otherwise altered in this patch,
> and both take "unsigned int cpu".
>
> Jan
>
> > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
These changes were not intended, I'm sorry.
I'll submit a v2. I also noticed that there are a few places left
where the coding style can still be improved.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)