[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [XEN PATCH 09/11] x86/msi: address violation of MISRA C Rule 20.7 and coding style


  • To: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:13:26 +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, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:13:39 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 26.03.2024 15:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2024-03-26 11:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.03.2024 17:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> MISRA C Rule 20.7 states: "Expressions resulting from the expansion
>>> of macro parameters shall be enclosed in parentheses". Therefore, some
>>> macro definitions should gain additional parentheses to ensure that 
>>> all
>>> current and future users will be safe with respect to expansions that
>>> can possibly alter the semantics of the passed-in macro parameter.
>>>
>>> While at it, the style of these macros has been somewhat uniformed.
>>
>> Hmm, yes, but they then still leave more to be desired. I guess I can 
>> see
>> though why you don't want to e.g. ...
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msi.h
>>> @@ -147,33 +147,34 @@ int msi_free_irq(struct msi_desc *entry);
>>>   */
>>>  #define NR_HP_RESERVED_VECTORS     20
>>>
>>> -#define msi_control_reg(base)              (base + PCI_MSI_FLAGS)
>>> -#define msi_lower_address_reg(base)        (base + PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_LO)
>>> -#define msi_upper_address_reg(base)        (base + PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_HI)
>>> -#define msi_data_reg(base, is64bit)        \
>>> -   ( (is64bit == 1) ? base+PCI_MSI_DATA_64 : base+PCI_MSI_DATA_32 )
>>> -#define msi_mask_bits_reg(base, is64bit) \
>>> -   ( (is64bit == 1) ? base+PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT : base+PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT-4)
>>> +#define msi_control_reg(base)        ((base) + PCI_MSI_FLAGS)
>>> +#define msi_lower_address_reg(base)  ((base) + PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_LO)
>>> +#define msi_upper_address_reg(base)  ((base) + PCI_MSI_ADDRESS_HI)
>>> +#define msi_data_reg(base, is64bit) \
>>> +    (((is64bit) == 1) ? (base) + PCI_MSI_DATA_64 : (base) + 
>>> PCI_MSI_DATA_32)
>>> +#define msi_mask_bits_reg(base, is64bit)                \
>>> +    (((is64bit) == 1) ? (base) + PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT       \
>>> +                      : (base) + PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT - 4)
>>
>> ... drop the bogus == 1 in these two, making them similar to ...
>>
>>>  #define msi_pending_bits_reg(base, is64bit) \
>>> -   ((base) + PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT + ((is64bit) ? 4 : 0))
>>> -#define msi_disable(control)               control &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE
>>> +    ((base) + PCI_MSI_MASK_BIT + ((is64bit) ? 4 : 0))
>>
>> ... this.
>>
>>> +#define msi_disable(control) (control) &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE
>>
>> Doesn't this need an outer pair of parentheses, too?
>>
> 
> Not necessarily.

And use of msi_disable() in another expression would then likely not do
what's expected?

> I'm in favour of a consistent style to be converted in. 
> This also applies below.

I'm all for consistency; I just don't know what you want to be consistent
with, here.

>>>  #define multi_msi_capable(control) \
>>> -   (1 << ((control & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QMASK) >> 1))
>>> +    (1 << (((control) & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QMASK) >> 1))
>>>  #define multi_msi_enable(control, num) \
>>> -   control |= (((fls(num) - 1) << 4) & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QSIZE);
>>> -#define is_64bit_address(control)  (!!(control & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_64BIT))
>>> -#define is_mask_bit_support(control)       (!!(control & 
>>> PCI_MSI_FLAGS_MASKBIT))
>>> +    (control) |= (((fls(num) - 1) << 4) & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_QSIZE);
>>
>> And this, together with dropping the bogus semicolon?
>>
> 
> I'll drop the semicolon.
> 
>> There also look to be cases where MASK_EXTR() / MASK_INSR() would want 
>> using,
>> in favor of using open-coded numbers.
> 
> Yes, perhaps. However, the risk that I make some mistakes in doing so 
> are quite high, though.

Right, hence how I started my earlier reply. Question is - do we want to
go just half the way here, or would we better tidy things all in one go?
In the latter case I could see about getting to that (whether to take
your patch as basis or instead do it from scratch isn't quite clear to
me at this point).

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.