| Message ID | 6ebb49a8ae92dc036d7bed0c708a8830bb93c788.1713382466.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | address violations of MISRA C Rule 16.2 | expand |
On 17.04.2024 21:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Refactor the first clauses so that a violation of > MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (a switch label should be immediately > enclosed in the compound statement of the switch). > Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo > keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to Rule 16.3. > > Convert fallthrough comments in other clauses to the pseudo-keyword > while at it. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> I did ack a patch with this title, yes, but the content of that patch was different. Besides all the references to the fallthrough pseudo- keyword being unrelated to the change below, there's also nothing ... > --- a/xen/common/domain.c > +++ b/xen/common/domain.c > @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d) > > for_each_vcpu ( d, v ) > { > + /* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by for loop*/ > PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown); > > rc = vcpu_teardown(v); ... domctl-ish in here. What is going on? Jan
On 2024-04-18 17:10, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.04.2024 21:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> Refactor the first clauses so that a violation of >> MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (a switch label should be immediately >> enclosed in the compound statement of the switch). >> Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo >> keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to Rule 16.3. >> >> Convert fallthrough comments in other clauses to the pseudo-keyword >> while at it. >> >> No functional change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> >> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > > I did ack a patch with this title, yes, but the content of that patch > was different. Besides all the references to the fallthrough pseudo- > keyword being unrelated to the change below, there's also nothing ... > >> --- a/xen/common/domain.c >> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c >> @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d) >> >> for_each_vcpu ( d, v ) >> { >> + /* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by >> for loop*/ >> PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown); >> >> rc = vcpu_teardown(v); > > ... domctl-ish in here. What is going on? > > Jan Oh, I must have edited the wrong patch when doing v3. Sorry about that. The patch was this [1], just with the id changed. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/2328b1a43f8bc4c9a9303c46f8eba2847c67a713.1712305581.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com/
diff --git a/docs/misra/safe.json b/docs/misra/safe.json index fe2bc185097d..9b13bcf71706 100644 --- a/docs/misra/safe.json +++ b/docs/misra/safe.json @@ -44,6 +44,14 @@ }, { "id": "SAF-5-safe", + "analyser": { + "eclair": "MC3R1.R16.2" + }, + "name": "MC3R1.R16.2: using a case label when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is not a switch statement", + "text": "A switch label enclosed by some compound statement that is not the body of a switch is permitted within local helper macros that are unlikely to be misused or misunderstood." + }, + { + "id": "SAF-6-safe", "analyser": {}, "name": "Sentinel", "text": "Next ID to be used" diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c index 282c3ab62308..1e555d658c97 100644 --- a/xen/common/domain.c +++ b/xen/common/domain.c @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d) for_each_vcpu ( d, v ) { + /* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by for loop*/ PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown); rc = vcpu_teardown(v);