From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19AA1C79F9F for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1414212.1643982 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4b6e-00029S-88; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:08 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1414212.1643982; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4b6e-00029L-4z; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:08 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1414212; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:07 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4b6d-00029E-31 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:07 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1x4b6b-0082gS-22; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:05 +0000 Received: from 224.pool85-54-217.dynamic.orange.es ([85.54.217.224] helo=localhost) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1x4b6c-00CnTW-0E; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:30:05 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=DRQLwICropSsTA3p1eK/BextFSV52IaHcHlhfCScjzg=; b=cC8S1rovSv2n0SubDekEbrOn52 x1eBiwsBSazgHOI8aZixnH70M++ArAw5cIEIrTS7OArdSFJRkCXodAYUaZKUkRj0i3ag7tMuhVuZK muUcbTngZkYvd5A+ix5QqcxrXzAq2APHwXVSQr2m240+N/MSymvpiNj71MGU9SB4nvw8=; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:30:03 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Nicola Vetrini , Andrew Cooper , Teddy Astie Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] x86/crash: address Misra 2.1 rule violation Message-ID: References: <90d0e3d6-2e12-43f1-815d-7936ca4c5fc6@suse.com> <96de425a-29f7-4759-8466-b72bbe40b90b@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 10:38:34AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 10.09.2026 09:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 09:02:18AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> The use of unreachable(), when unreachability is visible to Eclair (and > >> compilers), is deemed a violation. Drop the redundant statement. > > > > Urg, isn't that something that should be fixed in Eclair then? > > Otherwise all the unreachable() calls in our codebase are likely to be > > found by Eclair sooner or later, and will need to be removed. > > No, aiui most are covered by deviations. In particular ones in BUG() and > ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(). Shouldn't this be a deviation then also? Maybe it would be helpful if the commit message states why this is handled differently from other unreachable() instances then. Thanks, Roger.