Re: [XEN PATCH v3] xen: replace occurrences of SAF-1-safe with asmlinkage attribute

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>]

On 2023-11-20 11:27, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Nicola,
> 
> On 20/11/2023 08:39, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2023-11-17 20:15, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Nicola,
>>> 
>>> On 16/11/2023 09:15, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>> On 2023-11-16 10:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>> The comment-based justifications for MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4 are 
>>>>> replaced
>>>>> by the asmlinkage pseudo-attribute, for the sake of uniformity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Add missing 'xen/compiler.h' #include-s where needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The text in docs/misra/deviations.rst and docs/misra/safe.json
>>>>> is modified to reflect this change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This patch should be applied after patch 2 of this series.
>>>>> The request made by Julien to update the wording is
>>>>> contained in the present patch.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9ad7f6210c15f520297aac00e8af0e64@bugseng.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Concerns about efi_multiboot2 will be dealt with separately.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>>> - Edit safe.json.
>>>>> - Remove mention of SAF-1-safe in deviations.rst.
>>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>>> - Sorted #include-s and rebased against
>>>>> 7ad0c774e474 ("x86/boot: tidy #include-s")
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  docs/misra/deviations.rst   |  5 ++---
>>>>>  docs/misra/safe.json        |  2 +-
>>>>>  xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c    |  7 +++----
>>>>>  xen/arch/arm/setup.c        |  5 ++---
>>>>>  xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c      |  3 +--
>>>>>  xen/arch/arm/traps.c        | 21 +++++++--------------
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/boot/cmdline.c |  5 +++--
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/boot/reloc.c   |  6 +++---
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/extable.c      |  3 +--
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/setup.c        |  3 +--
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/traps.c        | 27 +++++++++------------------
>>>>>  xen/common/efi/boot.c       |  5 ++---
>>>>>  12 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In hindsight I should have added an
>>>> 
>>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>
>>>> 
>>>> given that the comment has been addressed in my opinion.
>>> 
>>> I am a bit confused how you considered it was addressed. I see no 
>>> update in safe.json when I clearly asked for some (I wouldn't have 
>>> bothered to comment in v2 otherwise and just gave an ack).
>>> 
>> 
>> I did update safe.json like so:
>> 
>> -            "text": "Functions and variables used only by asm modules 
>> do not need to have a visible declaration prior to their definition."
>> +            "text": "Not used anymore."
>> 
>> but given what you wrote below, maybe you wanted this in the series 
>> [1], right?
> 
> No. In series [1], we still need a proper description for SAF-1 as 
> there are still some use in the codebase. So it was correct to have 
> this hunk in this series.
> 
> What I was asking in series [1], it to reword:
> 
> +     - Functions and variables used only by asm modules are either 
> marked with
> +       the `asmlinkage` macro or with a SAF-1-safe textual deviation
> +       (see safe.json).
> 
> 
> to something like:
> 
> - Functions and variables used only by asm modules are marked with the 
> `asmlinkage macro``. This may also be marked with the now deprecated 
> SAF-1-safe textual deviation (see safe.json).
> 
>> 
>>> To be explicit, I requested to:
>>>   1. update the description in [2] to clarify that SAF-1 is 
>>> deprecated.
>>>   2. This patch is rebased on top and therefore remove completely the 
>>> mention of SAF-1.
>>> 
>>> I am well-aware that the end result is technically the same. But 
>>> patches are meant to be self-contained so if we revert the latest, 
>>> then the meaning is still the same.
>>> 
>>> This patch is unlikely to be removed and this is now the nth time I 
>>> asked it the same (maybe it was not clear enough?). So I am going to 
>>> content with the current proposal because this is not worth to go 
>>> further. But I will at least express my discontent how this is 
>>> handled.
>>> 
>> 
>> I misunderstood your previous comments then. When you commented on v2 
>> I surmised that you were ok with this patch condensing all the 
>> shuffling. Clearly this was not the case, but I also want to point out 
>> that. Given that [2] hasn't been committed yet either, then I can do 
>> what you asked.
> 
> No need for this time.
> 
> Cheers,

Ok, thanks for the patience.

-- 
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)