Re: [PATCH 10/17] x86/asm: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10

[Alessandro Zucchelli <alessandro.zucchelli@bugseng.com>]

On 2024-07-03 14:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.07.2024 15:36, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote:
>> --- a/docs/misra/safe.json
>> +++ b/docs/misra/safe.json
>> @@ -90,6 +90,14 @@
>>              "name": "Dir 4.10: direct inclusion guard before",
>>              "text": "Headers with just the direct inclusion guard 
>> before the inclusion guard are safe."
>>          },
>> +        {
>> +            "id": "SAF-11-safe",
>> +            "analyser": {
>> +                "eclair": "MC3R1.D4.10"
>> +            },
>> +            "name": "Dir 4.10: file intended for multiple inclusion",
>> +            "text": "Files intended for multiple inclusion are not 
>> supposed to comply with D4.10."
>> +        },
>>          {
>>              "id": "SAF-11-safe",
> 
> This can't be right; the sentinel must have its number changed.

Yes, this must have been overlooked during the rebasing of the previous 
patch version's commits.

> 
>> --- a/xen/include/Makefile
>> +++ b/xen/include/Makefile
>> @@ -104,10 +104,17 @@ $(obj)/compat/.xlat/%.lst: $(srcdir)/xlat.lst 
>> FORCE
>>  xlat-y := $(shell sed -ne 's,@arch@,$(compat-arch-y),g' -re 
>> 's,^[?!][[:blank:]]+[^[:blank:]]+[[:blank:]]+,,p' $(srcdir)/xlat.lst | 
>> uniq)
>>  xlat-y := $(filter $(patsubst compat/%,%,$(headers-y)),$(xlat-y))
>> 
>> +ARCHDIR = $(shell echo $(SRCARCH) | tr a-z A-Z)
> 
> Why is this being added here? It's not used ...

It was mistakenly left here from the previous version of the patch 
series.

> 
>>  quiet_cmd_xlat_h = GEN     $@
>> -cmd_xlat_h = \
>> -	cat $(filter %.h,$^) >$@.new; \
>> +define cmd_xlat_h
>> +	guard=$$(echo ASM_${SRCARCH}_COMPAT_XLAT_H | tr a-z A-Z); \
>> +	echo "#ifndef $$guard" > $@.new; \
>> +	echo "#define $$guard" >> $@.new; \
>> +	cat $(filter %.h,$^) >> $@.new; \
>> +	echo "#endif /* $$guard */" >> $@.new; \
>>  	mv -f $@.new $@
>> +endef
>> 
>>  $(obj)/compat/xlat.h: $(addprefix $(obj)/compat/.xlat/,$(xlat-y)) 
>> FORCE
>>  	$(call if_changed,xlat_h)
> 
> ... anywhere. Did you mean to use it in place of ${SRCARCH}?

No, SRCARCH is correct, as ARCHDIR was supposed to be removed.

-- 
Alessandro Zucchelli, B.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)