Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] xen/spinlock: remove misra rule 21.1 violations

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.03.24 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > In xen spinlock code there are several violations of MISRA rule 21.1
> > (identifiers starting with "__" or "_[A-Z]").
> >
> > Fix them by using trailing underscores instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> I can live with the changes as they are, but before giving an ack, I'd
> still like to ask if the moved underscores are really useful / necessary
> in all cases. E.g.
>
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
> > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ union lock_debug {
> >           bool unseen:1;
> >       };
> >   };
> > -#define _LOCK_DEBUG { .val = LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL }
> > +#define LOCK_DEBUG_ { .val = LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL }
> ... for an internal helper macro it may indeed be better to have a
> trailing one here, but ...
>
> > @@ -95,27 +95,27 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead {
> >       int32_t                   idx;     /* index for printout */
> >   };
> >   
> > -#define _LOCK_PROFILE(lockname) { .name = #lockname, .lock = &(lockname), }
> > -#define _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(name)                                               \
> > -    static struct lock_profile * const __lock_profile_##name                  \
> > +#define LOCK_PROFILE_(lockname) { .name = #lockname, .lock = &(lockname), }
> > +#define LOCK_PROFILE_PTR_(name)                                               \
> > +    static struct lock_profile * const lock_profile__##name                   \
> ... I'm not entirely convinced of the need for the double infix ones
> here ...
This reduces the chance of name clashes with other lock profiling variables or
functions (e.g. lock_profile_lock). In case you think this can be neglected, I'm
fine with dropping the extra underscores.


Juergen