Re: [PATCH v2] docs/misra/rules.rst: add Rule 17.1

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 15/12/2023 21:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi Stefano,
> > > 
> > > On 09/12/2023 01:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - separated 17.1 in its own patch
> > > > - add a comment
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/docs/misra/rules.rst b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > > > index 8a659d8d47..f29b4c3d9a 100644
> > > > --- a/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > > > +++ b/docs/misra/rules.rst
> > > > @@ -189,6 +189,12 @@ existing codebase are work-in-progress.
> > > >         - A switch-expression shall not have essentially Boolean type
> > > >         -
> > > >    +   * - `Rule 17.1
> > > > <https://gitlab.com/MISRA/MISRA-C/MISRA-C-2012/Example-Suite/-/blob/master/R_17_01.c>`_
> > > > +     - Required
> > > > +     - The features of <stdarg.h> shall not be used
> > > > +     - It is understood that in some limited circumstances <stdarg.h>
> > > > is
> > > > +       appropriate to use, such as the implementation of printk.
> > > 
> > > The last bullet point is unclear to me. You don't define what
> > > "appropriate"
> > > means here. So who is going to decide? Also, how is this going to be
> > > deviated?
> > > 
> > > Possibly the solution here is to remove the last bullet point and have a
> > > paragraph in deviations.rst explaining why we are using va_args.
> > 
> > Actually, I agree with you. I added the last bullet to address Jan's
> > concern:
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170191695511513
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170193528120968
> > 
> > This was my original reply:
> > 
> > "We agreed that in certain situations stdarg.h is OK to use and in those
> > cases we would add a deviation. Would you like me to add something to
> > that effect here? I could do that but it would sound a bit vague.  Also
> > if we want to specify a project-wide deviation it would be better
> > documented in docs/misra/deviations.rst. I would leave Rule 17.1 without
> > a note."
> > 
> > My preference is still to remove the last bullet (because too generic)
> > and add any specific information to deviations.rst as usual.
> > 
> > Julien, would you be OK with this patch if I remove the last bullet and
> > leave it blank?
> 
> I would be fine with that:
> 
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

I plan to commit that one of the next few days unless someone speaks up