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 49FB8C79FB9 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1414571.1644323 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4dtz-0004Ys-PZ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:15 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1414571.1644323; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4dtz-0004Yl-M3; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:15 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1414571; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:14 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1x4dty-0004Yf-5Z for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:14 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1x4dtw-0086cH-2d; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:13 +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 1x4dtx-009sYG-0s; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:29:13 +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=iXPS5Bo+BPvr1CNvxVUEYJd/49ImjH+vF4ef4UYV234=; b=vEjQDnZSE+ikN6fYnKaaPn6ldH Ng4rl5IS+prrUEBG2leKdCju1HfvBYvcClGzfPdPCFWX5DDZD6NP5dnDVCer6uShsiL/MRZpx5su4 repnZR/0r6yHYamvWBPK4DeZGsIn9hNDZoRIJaK/UlDU4hixLvmCDHpAYG/kzjmDfbmE=; Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 14:29:07 +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 11:52:10AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 10.09.2026 11:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > 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, just that I had no good idea how to express such a deviation (preferably > without a SAF comment). > > > Maybe it would be helpful if > > the commit message states why this is handled differently from other > > unreachable() instances then. > > I've added "..., , and the one here isn't covered by a deviation" to the first > sentence. Will that suffice? TBH, the handling of unreachable() feels inconsistent to me. I don't blame you for this, I know you are just trying to fix the remaining issues. I guess I will defer the change to someone more familiar with MISRA and why some unreachable() usages are covered by deviations while others aren't. I think the point of adding something to the commit message is to justify why this is removed vs a deviation being added. Thanks, Roger.