Re: [XEN PATCH v3] xen: replace occurrences of SAF-1-safe with asmlinkage attribute

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Nicola,

On 23/11/2023 09:25, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-11-23 09:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 16.11.2023 10:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > The comment-based justifications for MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4 are replaced
> > > by the asmlinkage pseudo-attribute, for the sake of uniformity.
> > >
> > > Add missing 'xen/compiler.h' #include-s where needed.
> > >
> > > The text in docs/misra/deviations.rst and docs/misra/safe.json
> > > is modified to reflect this change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > This patch should be applied after patch 2 of this series.
> > > The request made by Julien to update the wording is
> > > contained in the present patch.
> > Along with this request he supplied you with an ack. Did you drop that
> > for a particular reason, or did you simply forget to record it here?
> I forgot and added it in a reply.
>
> > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c
> > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ asm (
> > >
> > >  #include "defs.h"
> > >
> > > +#include <xen/compiler.h>
> > >  #include <xen/kconfig.h>
> > >  #include <xen/multiboot.h>
> > >  #include <xen/multiboot2.h>
> > > @@ -348,9 +349,8 @@ static multiboot_info_t *mbi2_reloc(uint32_t 
> > > mbi_in, uint32_t video_out)
> > >      return mbi_out;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -/* SAF-1-safe */
> > > -void *__stdcall reloc(uint32_t magic, uint32_t in, uint32_t trampoline,
> > > -                      uint32_t video_info)
> > > +void *asmlinkage __stdcall reloc(uint32_t magic, uint32_t in,
> > > +                                 uint32_t trampoline, uint32_t 
> > > video_info)
> > >  {
> > One purpose of asmlinkage is to possibly alter the default C calling 
> > convention
> > to some more easy to use in assembly code. At least over a period of 
> > time Linux
> > for example used that on ix86. If we decided to do something like 
> > this, there
> > would be a collision with __stdcall. Hence I'm not convinced we can put
> > asmlinkage here. At which point the complete removal of SAF-1-safe 
> > also would
> > need dropping.
> Ok, so we can keep SAF-1 here and below and leave the wording in 
> deviations.rst and safe.sjon as is.
I guess you mean without this patch applied and not including my 
proposed rewording (i.e. to deprecated SAF-1)?
If so, then we are back to the initial concern I raised. We would have 
two ways to address the deviation. From a user perspective, it would be 
unclear which one should be used.
In particular, I would rather favor asmlinkage whenever it is possible 
and only use SAF-1 when it is not possible to use it (like here).
Another possibility would be to deviate __stdcall like we do for 
asmlinkage (I will let Jan confirm if this is desirable). With this 
approach, there is less ambiguity when to use either of them.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall