Re: [XEN PATCH 3/7] xen/arm: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 2.1

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-12-11 15:14, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 11/12/2023 13:06, Michal Orzel wrote:
> > On 11/12/2023 13:29, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 11/12/2023 10:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > The "return 1;" statements at the end of some cases in the switch
> > > > of function 'vgic_v3_its_mmio_write' in 'vcig-v3-its.c' cause the
> > > > unreachability of the "return 1;" statement after the switch, thus
> > > > violating MISRA C:2012 Rule 2.1:
> > > > "A project shall not contain unreachable code".
> > > >
> > > > The same is true for the switch in 'arch_memory_op' from
> > > > 'xen/arch/arm/mm.c'.
> > > For both cases, I actually much prefer the "return" version in the
> > > cases. In particular for the vGIC emulation the switch is quite large
> > > and it would not be trivial to know what happens after the break.
> > Because of this...
> >
> > > IOW, I would much prefer if we remove the "return ..." outside of the
> > > switch.
> > wouldn't it be better to add ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() before this return 
> > instead of removing it?
> > This is what we have in e.g. vpl011 and it prevents mistakes.
> I am ok with that. But I am not sure if this would make ECLAIR unhappy.
>
> Cheers,
Should be okay. I'll test and report back

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)