Re: [XEN PATCH 12/12] xen/pci: address a violation of MISRA C Rule 16.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/09/24 19:41, Federico Serafini wrote:
> On 10/09/24 16:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 10.09.2024 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 10.09.2024 12:09, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > > > Address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3:
> > > > "An unconditional `break' statement shall terminate every
> > > > switch-clause".
> > > Since in our interpretation "return" is okay too, why is not 
> > > sufficient to
> > > simply ...
> > >
> > > > --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
> > > > @@ -170,8 +170,10 @@ static int __init cf_check 
> > > > parse_phantom_dev(const char *str)
> > > >       {
> > > >       case 1: case 2: case 4:
> > > >           if ( *s )
> > > > -    default:
> > > >               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +        break;
> > > ... insert just this one line here?
> > I guess the problem is with the description: It's un-annotated 
> > fall-through
> > in this case, not so much the lack of a break (or alike).
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > > > +    default:
> > > > +        return -EINVAL;
> > > >       }
> > > >       phantom_devs[nr_phantom_devs++] = phantom;
> Do you prefer this?
>
> case 1: case 2: case 4:
>      if ( *s )
>          fallthrough;
>      break;
> default:
>      return -EINVAL;
Oh no, sorry,
this does not make sense.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

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