[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH 03/10] x86: address some violations of MISRA C Rule 20.7
- To: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:05:49 +0100
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, michal.orzel@xxxxxxx, xenia.ragiadakou@xxxxxxx, ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx, consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx, bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx, julien@xxxxxxx, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:05:55 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 29.02.2024 17:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 17:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 29.02.2024 16:27, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
>>> @@ -179,9 +179,9 @@ void cleanup_domain_irq_mapping(struct domain *d);
>>> void *__ret = radix_tree_lookup(&(d)->arch.hvm.emuirq_pirq,
>>> emuirq);\
>>> __ret ? radix_tree_ptr_to_int(__ret) : IRQ_UNBOUND;
>>> \
>>> })
>>> -#define IRQ_UNBOUND -1
>>> -#define IRQ_PT -2
>>> -#define IRQ_MSI_EMU -3
>>> +#define IRQ_UNBOUND (-1)
>>> +#define IRQ_PT (-2)
>>> +#define IRQ_MSI_EMU (-3)
>>>
>>> bool cpu_has_pending_apic_eoi(void);
>>>
>>
>> I'd be happy to ack this change right away.
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/usercopy.c
>>> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ unsigned int copy_from_guest_ll(void *to, const
>>> void __user *from, unsigned int
>>> return n;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -#if GUARD(1) + 0
>>> +#if GUARD((1)) + 0
>>
>> I don't even understand the need for this one, and nothing is said in
>> the description in that regard. Generally I'm afraid I'm averse to
>> such (seemingly) redundant parentheses in macro invocations.
>>
>
> It's because
> #define UA_KEEP(args...) args
> #define GUARD UA_KEEP
>
> which would expand to #if 1 + 0, while the rule demands #if (1) + 0
> I did note in the message after --- that I didn't wanna touch UA_KEEP so
> I did this instead, which I'm not particularly happy about either. I can
> remove this and deviate, there is no other issue with GUARD.
Or
#if (GUARD(1) + 0)
? To me at least that's quite a bit less odd. But I guess that still
wouldn't satisfy the rule. Perhaps even
#if (GUARD(1)) + 0
would be a little less odd, albeit there I'd already be on the edge.
Jan
|
