| Message ID | 41edfbbbc8fae317ebee791633259d7b5c88a2c6.1691575243.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xen: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4 | expand |
On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > The additional header file makes the declaration for the function > 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the > violation of Rule 8.4. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > --- > xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > #include <xen/delay.h> > #include <asm/apic.h> > #include <asm/asm_defns.h> > +#include <asm/setup.h> > #include <io_ports.h> > #include <irq_vectors.h> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html Jan
On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function >> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the >> violation of Rule 8.4. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >> #include <xen/delay.h> >> #include <asm/apic.h> >> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> >> +#include <asm/setup.h> >> #include <io_ports.h> >> #include <irq_vectors.h> > > A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: > https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html > > Jan So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning it in the additional commit context of course)?
On 09.08.2023 16:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function >>> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the >>> violation of Rule 8.4. >>> >>> No functional change. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >>> --- >>> xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >>> #include <xen/delay.h> >>> #include <asm/apic.h> >>> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> >>> +#include <asm/setup.h> >>> #include <io_ports.h> >>> #include <irq_vectors.h> >> >> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: >> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html > > So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning > it > in the additional commit context of course)? I would prefer using the much older patch, but of course this requires someone providing R-b or A-b. Jan
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.08.2023 16:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > >>> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function > >>> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the > >>> violation of Rule 8.4. > >>> > >>> No functional change. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > >>> --- > >>> xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > >>> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 > >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c > >>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ > >>> #include <xen/delay.h> > >>> #include <asm/apic.h> > >>> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> > >>> +#include <asm/setup.h> > >>> #include <io_ports.h> > >>> #include <irq_vectors.h> > >> > >> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: > >> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html > > > > So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning > > it > > in the additional commit context of course)? > > I would prefer using the much older patch, but of course this requires > someone providing R-b or A-b. Hi Jan, normally I'd be happy to do that but that patch makes other changes that I don't feel confident enough to Ack. For instance: + for ( offs = 0, i = pic_alias_mask & -pic_alias_mask ?: 2; + offs <= pic_alias_mask; offs += i ) pic_alias_mask is declared as unsigned int.
On 09.08.2023 22:15, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 09.08.2023 16:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 09/08/2023 14:52, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 09.08.2023 13:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> The additional header file makes the declaration for the function >>>>> 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the >>>>> violation of Rule 8.4. >>>>> >>>>> No functional change. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c >>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ >>>>> #include <xen/delay.h> >>>>> #include <asm/apic.h> >>>>> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> >>>>> +#include <asm/setup.h> >>>>> #include <io_ports.h> >>>>> #include <irq_vectors.h> >>>> >>>> A patch adding this #include has been pending for almost 3 months: >>>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2023-05/msg00896.html >>> >>> So do you prefer going forward with that patch or this one (mentioning >>> it >>> in the additional commit context of course)? >> >> I would prefer using the much older patch, but of course this requires >> someone providing R-b or A-b. > > Hi Jan, normally I'd be happy to do that but that patch makes other > changes that I don't feel confident enough to Ack. I understand that in general, but for this specific case ... > For instance: > > + for ( offs = 0, i = pic_alias_mask & -pic_alias_mask ?: 2; > + offs <= pic_alias_mask; offs += i ) > > pic_alias_mask is declared as unsigned int. ... you're concerned of me negating it? That's a common pattern to determine the largest power-of-2 factor. I'm unaware of a good alternative. Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c index 6b35be10f0..9b02a3a0ae 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/i8259.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include <xen/delay.h> #include <asm/apic.h> #include <asm/asm_defns.h> +#include <asm/setup.h> #include <io_ports.h> #include <irq_vectors.h>
The additional header file makes the declaration for the function 'init_IRQ', defined in this file visible, thereby resolving the violation of Rule 8.4. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> --- xen/arch/x86/i8259.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)