[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
On 2024-02-29 18:05, Jan Beulich wrote: 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)) + 0I 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) + 0I 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 canremove 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. Sorry for the late reply. I'll split this in v2. Solution #2 seems ok at first glance. -- Nicola Vetrini, BSc Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |