Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xen/device_tree: fix Eclair findings for MISRA C 2012 Rule 20.7

[Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/7/23 14:25, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 07/02/2023 10:46, Xenia Ragiadakou wrote:
> > On 2/7/23 12:39, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 07/02/2023 10:23, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > > > > On 3 Feb 2023, at 19:09, Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > I’m not really a supporter of empty commit message, but it’s up to 
> > > > the maintainer :)
> > > +1. In this case a brief summary of the rule would be handy for those 
> > > that are not well-versed with MISRA.
> > > This can be dealt on commit if you propose a new commit message.
> > I 'm refrained from stating the rule as is because it is strict and it 
> > is not applied as is.
> I am a bit confused with this statement. From misra/..., we are 
> supporting rule 20.7. So why aren't applying it strictly?
> And if it is not applied as-is, shouldn't we document the violation (if 
> any)?
I applied it strictly on v2, but there was no review.
Then Eclair was adjusted to have a less strict approach. Still there is 
a finding asking to add parentheses around dt in 
dt_for_each_device_node(dt, dn), i.e dn = (dt);, to which AFAIK you object.
> > "Add parentheses around macro parameters when the precedence and 
> > associativity of the performed operators can lead to unintended order 
> > of evaluation."
> > Is this ok?
> I am OK with this. Is there any ID from Eclair that could be used to 
> track each error (and so we can confirm they have disappeared)?
I am not aware of any.

The patch can be decoupled from misra and Eclair (I mean have a generic 
commit title) and just mention in the commit message that it fixes some 
Eclair findings for MISRA C rule 20.7.
> Cheers,
--
Xenia