Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> >>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
> >>>>           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
> >>>>           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> >>>>         },
> >>>> +        {
> >>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
> >>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> >>>> +        },
> >>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
> >>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
> >>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
> >>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
> >>> Jan
> >> +Cc Luca Fancellu
> >> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which 
> >> aren't.
> >> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly 
> >> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I 
> >> think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
> > 
> > It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and 
> > "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
> 
> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the 
> risk that if
> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA 
> compliance,
> it will be excluded.
> 
> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.

I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.