Re: [PATCH v1] docs/misra/rules.rst: catch up with accepted rules

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.02.2024 02:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Update docs/misra/rules.rst to reflect the MISRA C rules accepted in the
> > last couple of months.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 
> > In the notes section I added some info about the deviations, but in any
> > case the appropriate info will also be added to deviations.rst,
> > safe.json, etc.
> > 
> > I also added Rule 14.4, which is older, but when I first tried to add it
> > to rules.rst, Jan had a question I couldn't reply clearly:
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169828285627163
> > 
> > I think now with this series, the impact of Rule 14.4 is clearer:
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170194257326186
> 
> This series is about enums only afaics. Yet the rule is much wider, and iirc
> we had agreed that for integer and pointer types the normal language
> conversion to boolean meaning is fine as well. Not only do you not mention
> this case in the entry,

I can add a note about it.


> but it also continue to mean that effectively we
> limit the rule to a very narrow case. Which continue to leave open the
> question of whether the rule is worthwhile to accept in the first place.

When someone does a safety certification, there is a difference between
deviating a rule as a whole or accepting the rule and only deviating
certain aspects of it (simply ignoring the rule is typically not an
option in safety certification context.) So here I think it would help
downstreams interested in safety if we added the rule, with specific
deviations.

Do you have any comments on the other parts of this patch? If not, I
would be happy to resent the rest unmodified, and update only 14.4 in
its own separate patch where we can discuss further.