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

[Simone Ballarin <simone.ballarin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27/10/23 00:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I'll work on the patch using this schema.

--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.

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