Re: [PATCH v3] xen/arm: domain: Fix MISRA C 2012 Rule 8.7 violation

[Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julien,

Hi Julien,

On 7/29/22 18:15, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Xenia,
>
> On 29/07/2022 15:03, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> > On 7/29/22 16:41, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
> > > Hi Xenia,
> > >
> > > > On 29 Jul 2022, at 07:31, Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Jan,
> > > >
> > > > On 7/29/22 09:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 28.07.2022 18:21, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> > > > > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > > > > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > > > > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static void do_idle(void)
> > > > > >       rcu_idle_exit(cpu);
> > > > > >   }
> > > > > >   -void idle_loop(void)
> > > > > > +static void idle_loop(void)
> > > > > While you're adding "noreturn" below, shouldn't this one be marked so
> > > > > as well? Preferably with the addition:
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Yes, but I was not sure if this should go in this patch or in a 
> > > > separate one.
> > > As you modify the function to make it static, I think it is ok to 
> > > also add the noreturn in the same patch.
> > > With that done, you can add my:
> > > Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Bertrand
> > I consider this change unrelated to the patch. I think it is a bad 
> > practice to squash unrelated changes in a single patch. Also, I do not 
> > think it is unfair to be obliged to make it in order for the patch to 
> > be accepted.
> > I could have taken the opportunity to fix this in the same patch but I 
> > decided to not take it.
> In general, I don't like having multiple changes within a patch. 
> However, here this is a consistency problem. You are modifying the 3 
> prototypes (well one is technically a declaration) and it reads odd that 
> 2 are using noreturn but not the other one.
The patch adds the 2 function declarations, it does not modify them. 
Since they do not return, they are declared noreturn.
If the function idle_loop was not declared noreturn, although it should 
have been, for me is a completely different issue.
> I would actually argue that if this patch goes in like that, then the 
> commit message ought to explain why there is a lack of consistency.
I do not agree with you saying that the patch introduced this 
inconsistency. The function idle_loop should have been declared noreturn 
in the first place. If you would like to fix this in the current patch, 
it is up to you.
> Anyway, I agree with Bertrand that it would be preferable to add 
> noreturn to the declaration of idle_loop() in this patch.
> To avoid a round trip, I would be OK to handle on commit.
>
> Cheers,
--
Xenia