| Message ID | 565552f9e7cfff56fb1d1037cfa9662a1818c5d3.1698153310.git.federico.serafini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [XEN,RFC] xen/automation: add deviations for MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3 | expand |
On 24.10.2023 15:22, Federico Serafini wrote: > Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate Rule 8.3 ("All declarations of > an object or function shall use the same names and type qualifiers") > for the following functions: > - set_px_pminfo(); > - guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels(). > > Update file docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly. > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> > --- > I had a discussion with Jan about the reasons behind the choice of parameter > name 'walk' for the definitions of functions guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels() > and the parameter name 'pfec' for the corresponding declarations. > Also for the function set_px_pminfo(), it seems that the parameter names are > different on purpose. In this latter case I wonder why you think so. Did I end up making a misleading comment anywhere? It looks to me as if naming the parameter in question "perf" uniformly would be quite okay. Jan
On 24/10/23 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.10.2023 15:22, Federico Serafini wrote: >> Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate Rule 8.3 ("All declarations of >> an object or function shall use the same names and type qualifiers") >> for the following functions: >> - set_px_pminfo(); >> - guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels(). >> >> Update file docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly. >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> >> --- >> I had a discussion with Jan about the reasons behind the choice of parameter >> name 'walk' for the definitions of functions guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels() >> and the parameter name 'pfec' for the corresponding declarations. >> Also for the function set_px_pminfo(), it seems that the parameter names are >> different on purpose. > > In this latter case I wonder why you think so. Did I end up making a > misleading comment anywhere? It looks to me as if naming the parameter > in question "perf" uniformly would be quite okay. > > Jan No, it was just my impression. What about the mismatch on the first parameter "acpi_id" vs "cpu"?
On 24.10.2023 17:22, Federico Serafini wrote: > On 24/10/23 16:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.2023 15:22, Federico Serafini wrote: >>> Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate Rule 8.3 ("All declarations of >>> an object or function shall use the same names and type qualifiers") >>> for the following functions: >>> - set_px_pminfo(); >>> - guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels(). >>> >>> Update file docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly. >>> No functional change. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> >>> --- >>> I had a discussion with Jan about the reasons behind the choice of parameter >>> name 'walk' for the definitions of functions guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels() >>> and the parameter name 'pfec' for the corresponding declarations. >>> Also for the function set_px_pminfo(), it seems that the parameter names are >>> different on purpose. >> >> In this latter case I wonder why you think so. Did I end up making a >> misleading comment anywhere? It looks to me as if naming the parameter >> in question "perf" uniformly would be quite okay. > > No, it was just my impression. > What about the mismatch on the first parameter "acpi_id" vs "cpu"? The two can't possibly be used interchangeably, so whichever entity it is that is being passed should determine the uniformly used name. Jan
diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl index d8170106b4..9485d66928 100644 --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl @@ -204,6 +204,10 @@ const-qualified." -config=MC3R1.R8.3,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(any_loc(file(adopted_mpparse_r8_3)))&&any_area(any_loc(file(^xen/arch/x86/include/asm/mpspec\\.h$)))"} -doc_end +-doc_begin="For functions set_px_pminfo() and guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels(), parameter names of definitions deliberately differ from the ones used in the corresponding declarations." +-config=MC3R1.R8.3,declarations={deliberate,"^set_px_pminfo\\(uint32_t, struct xen_processor_performance\\*\\)|guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels\\(const struct vcpu\\*, struct p2m_domain\\*, unsigned long, walk_t\\*, uint32_t, gfn_t, mfn_t, void\\*\\)$"} +-doc_end + -doc_begin="The following variables are compiled in multiple translation units belonging to different executables and therefore are safe." -config=MC3R1.R8.6,declarations+={safe, "name(current_stack_pointer||bsearch||sort)"} diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst index 8511a18925..b5016412f6 100644 --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst @@ -121,6 +121,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: - xen/common/unxz.c - xen/common/unzstd.c + * - R8.3 + - In some cases, parameter names used in the function definition + deliberately differ from the ones used in the corresponding declaration. + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. Such functions are: + - set_px_pminfo() + - guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels() + * - R8.4 - The definitions present in the files 'asm-offsets.c' for any architecture are used to generate definitions for asm modules, and are not called by
Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate Rule 8.3 ("All declarations of an object or function shall use the same names and type qualifiers") for the following functions: - set_px_pminfo(); - guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels(). Update file docs/misra/deviations.rst accordingly. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@bugseng.com> --- I had a discussion with Jan about the reasons behind the choice of parameter name 'walk' for the definitions of functions guest_walk_tables_[0-9]+_levels() and the parameter name 'pfec' for the corresponding declarations. Also for the function set_px_pminfo(), it seems that the parameter names are different on purpose. Can I submit a patch with these deviations? Do you have any comments? --- automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 4 ++++ docs/misra/deviations.rst | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)