Re: x86/bitops and MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.5

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/03/24 12:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/03/2024 11:07 am, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > there are violations of Rule 5.5 ("Identifiers shall be distinct
> > from macro names") in xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h.
> > You can see them at [1].
> >
> > Do you agree to distinguish between function-like macros and
> > inline functions by adding a suffix to the functions?
> Please see the other bitops thread, which you're also CC'd on.
>
> Although it's not got to these functions yet, this is going to be fixed
> by having set_bit() be common, and arch_set_bit() be the per-arch
> implemenation.
>
> Neither _unsafe nor _nocheck are remotely appropriate here.
Thanks, I missed it.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)