| Message ID | 36cd255a8d4068a66ad8cf45060d60b84b9d4c6d.1739564781.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Move Xen ECLAIR configuration to analyze.yaml | expand |
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with > named parameters". > > The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type > that constitutes the first parameter. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > --- > This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the > follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static > analysis. > > I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the parameter, > so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them. > --- > xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/xen/common/sched/rt.c b/xen/common/sched/rt.c > index f368e0fdd5a5..0300d2d2e454 100644 > --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c > +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c > @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, struct list_head *elem) > } > > static inline bool > -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *), > +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *q_iter), I think it should be "elem" instead of "q_iter" Other than that: Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> The small change can be done on commit. > struct rt_unit *svc, struct list_head *elem, > struct list_head *queue) > { > -- > 2.43.0 >
On 15.02.2025 00:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with >> named parameters". >> >> The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type >> that constitutes the first parameter. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the >> follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static >> analysis. >> >> I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the parameter, >> so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them. >> --- >> xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) This is a specific scheduler you touch, which I think wants expressing somehow (e.g. via an adjusted prefix) in the patch subject. >> --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c >> +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c >> @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, struct list_head *elem) >> } >> >> static inline bool >> -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *), >> +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *q_iter), > > I think it should be "elem" instead of "q_iter" Why would it matter what the name is? There's no separate decl to stay in sync with. (That said, I'd be happy with "elem"; it'll be a matter of the maintainers to judge.) Jan
On 2025-02-17 08:54, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.02.2025 00:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with >>> named parameters". >>> >>> The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type >>> that constitutes the first parameter. >>> >>> No functional change. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >>> --- >>> This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the >>> follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static >>> analysis. >>> >>> I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the >>> parameter, >>> so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them. >>> --- >>> xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > This is a specific scheduler you touch, which I think wants expressing > somehow (e.g. via an adjusted prefix) in the patch subject. > Ok. I think it should be "xen/rt" then. >>> --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c >>> +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c >>> @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, >>> struct list_head *elem) >>> } >>> >>> static inline bool >>> -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *), >>> +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head >>> *q_iter), >> >> I think it should be "elem" instead of "q_iter" > > Why would it matter what the name is? There's no separate decl to stay > in > sync with. (That said, I'd be happy with "elem"; it'll be a matter of > the > maintainers to judge.) > > Jan I'd be ok with that too.
On 17.02.25 09:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2025-02-17 08:54, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.02.2025 00:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with >>>> named parameters". >>>> >>>> The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type >>>> that constitutes the first parameter. >>>> >>>> No functional change. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >>>> --- >>>> This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the >>>> follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static >>>> analysis. >>>> >>>> I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the parameter, >>>> so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them. >>>> --- >>>> xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> This is a specific scheduler you touch, which I think wants expressing >> somehow (e.g. via an adjusted prefix) in the patch subject. >> > > Ok. I think it should be "xen/rt" then. > >>>> --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c >>>> +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c >>>> @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, struct >>>> list_head *elem) >>>> } >>>> >>>> static inline bool >>>> -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *), >>>> +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *q_iter), >>> >>> I think it should be "elem" instead of "q_iter" >> >> Why would it matter what the name is? There's no separate decl to stay in >> sync with. (That said, I'd be happy with "elem"; it'll be a matter of the >> maintainers to judge.) >> >> Jan > > I'd be ok with that too. > I think naming it "elem" is the better choice, as both functions used for the qelem() parameter name their parameter "elem" already. With that change: Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> Juergen
diff --git a/xen/common/sched/rt.c b/xen/common/sched/rt.c index f368e0fdd5a5..0300d2d2e454 100644 --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, struct list_head *elem) } static inline bool -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *), +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *q_iter), struct rt_unit *svc, struct list_head *elem, struct list_head *queue) {
Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with named parameters". The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type that constitutes the first parameter. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> --- This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static analysis. I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the parameter, so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them. --- xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)