| Message ID | b0c855581eed247a32b745906f84d352bf812091.1707324479.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [XEN] docs/misra: add x86_64 and arm64 asm-offset.c to exclude-list | expand |
On 08.02.2024 08:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules and > they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be exempted > from MISRA compliance. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > --- > Since the exclude list only contains arm64 and x86 files I reasoned that > introducing an entry that would match all architectures would not be desirable > (e.g., arm32). I'm happy to change that, though. Just wanted to ask - if globs are permitted, I'd favor covering all possible architectures. It is certainly expected that they all follow suit. Just that in the absence of sub-architectures the path would be xen/arch/*/asm-offsets.c (and it's quite possible that we may, over time, morph x86 to a sub-arch-less form). Jan > --- > docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > index 7971d0e70f5b..bd05478e03e9 100644 > --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ > "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/lib/find_next_bit.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > + { > + "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/asm-offsets.c", > + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" > + }, > { > "rel_path": "arch/x86/acpi/boot.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@ > "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/mmconf-fam10h.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > + { > + "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/asm-offsets.c", > + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" > + }, > { > "rel_path": "arch/x86/efi/check.c", > "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now"
Hi Jan, On 2024-02-08 09:05, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 08.02.2024 08:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules >> and >> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be >> exempted >> from MISRA compliance. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> Since the exclude list only contains arm64 and x86 files I reasoned >> that >> introducing an entry that would match all architectures would not be >> desirable >> (e.g., arm32). I'm happy to change that, though. > > Just wanted to ask - if globs are permitted, I'd favor covering all > possible > architectures. It is certainly expected that they all follow suit. Just > that > in the absence of sub-architectures the path would be > xen/arch/*/asm-offsets.c > (and it's quite possible that we may, over time, morph x86 to a > sub-arch-less > form). > > Jan > Ok, I'll modify it. Thanks,
Hi Nicola, On 08/02/2024 07:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules and > they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be exempted > from MISRA compliance. I am curious, what are the violations you are talking about? Cheers, > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > --- > Since the exclude list only contains arm64 and x86 files I reasoned that > introducing an entry that would match all architectures would not be desirable > (e.g., arm32). I'm happy to change that, though. > --- > docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > index 7971d0e70f5b..bd05478e03e9 100644 > --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ > "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/lib/find_next_bit.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > + { > + "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/asm-offsets.c", > + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" > + }, > { > "rel_path": "arch/x86/acpi/boot.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@ > "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/mmconf-fam10h.c", > "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" > }, > + { > + "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/asm-offsets.c", > + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" > + }, > { > "rel_path": "arch/x86/efi/check.c", > "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now"
Hi Julien, On 2024-02-08 22:33, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Nicola, > > On 08/02/2024 07:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules >> and >> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be >> exempted >> from MISRA compliance. > > I am curious, what are the violations you are talking about? > > Cheers, > The one that prompted the exclusion is for R20.12 on arm for the macros DEFINE and OFFSET, where the second argument of OFFSET is a macro and is used as a normal parameter and a stringification operand. However, there are other special cases (e.g., the file not being linked, which violates R2.1 and was already decided to deviate that aspect).
On 09/02/2024 07:52, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Hi Julien, Hi Nicola, > > On 2024-02-08 22:33, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Nicola, >> >> On 08/02/2024 07:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C >>> rules and >>> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be >>> exempted >>> from MISRA compliance. >> >> I am curious, what are the violations you are talking about? >> >> Cheers, >> > > The one that prompted the exclusion is for R20.12 on arm for the macros > DEFINE and OFFSET, where the second argument of OFFSET is a macro and is > used as a normal parameter and a stringification operand. > However, there are other special cases (e.g., the file not being linked, > which violates R2.1 and was already decided to deviate that aspect). Thanks for the clarification. I think it would be worth to add what you just wrote in the commit message. This give an idea to the reviewer why we excluded it. With Jan's request addressed: Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> >
On 2024-02-09 10:28, Julien Grall wrote: > On 09/02/2024 07:52, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> Hi Julien, > > Hi Nicola, > >> >> On 2024-02-08 22:33, Julien Grall wrote: >>> Hi Nicola, >>> >>> On 08/02/2024 07:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C >>>> rules and >>>> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be >>>> exempted >>>> from MISRA compliance. >>> >>> I am curious, what are the violations you are talking about? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >> >> The one that prompted the exclusion is for R20.12 on arm for the >> macros DEFINE and OFFSET, where the second argument of OFFSET is a >> macro and is used as a normal parameter and a stringification operand. >> However, there are other special cases (e.g., the file not being >> linked, which violates R2.1 and was already decided to deviate that >> aspect). > > Thanks for the clarification. I think it would be worth to add what you > just wrote in the commit message. This give an idea to the reviewer why > we excluded it. > > With Jan's request addressed: > > Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> > >> Thanks. I did send a v2 of this patch addressing Jan's request. I'll let him decide whether he wants a more detailed commit message.
Hi, On 09/02/2024 09:34, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2024-02-09 10:28, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 09/02/2024 07:52, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> Hi Julien, >> >> Hi Nicola, >> >>> >>> On 2024-02-08 22:33, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> Hi Nicola, >>>> >>>> On 08/02/2024 07:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C >>>>> rules and >>>>> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be >>>>> exempted >>>>> from MISRA compliance. >>>> >>>> I am curious, what are the violations you are talking about? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>> >>> The one that prompted the exclusion is for R20.12 on arm for the >>> macros DEFINE and OFFSET, where the second argument of OFFSET is a >>> macro and is used as a normal parameter and a stringification operand. >>> However, there are other special cases (e.g., the file not being >>> linked, which violates R2.1 and was already decided to deviate that >>> aspect). >> >> Thanks for the clarification. I think it would be worth to add what >> you just wrote in the commit message. This give an idea to the >> reviewer why we excluded it. >> >> With Jan's request addressed: >> >> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com> >> >>> > > Thanks. I did send a v2 of this patch addressing Jan's request. I'll let > him decide whether he wants a more detailed commit message. Ah I didn't spot the v2. Jan, would you be happy if I commit it with the updated commit message? Cheers,
diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json index 7971d0e70f5b..bd05478e03e9 100644 --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/lib/find_next_bit.c", "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" }, + { + "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/asm-offsets.c", + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" + }, { "rel_path": "arch/x86/acpi/boot.c", "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@ "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/mmconf-fam10h.c", "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" }, + { + "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/asm-offsets.c", + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now" + }, { "rel_path": "arch/x86/efi/check.c", "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen binary, ignore for now"
These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules and they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be exempted from MISRA compliance. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> --- Since the exclude list only contains arm64 and x86 files I reasoned that introducing an entry that would match all architectures would not be desirable (e.g., arm32). I'm happy to change that, though. --- docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)