Re: [XEN PATCH v2] x86/mm: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rules 8.2 and 8.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/08/23 11:47, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 10:38 am, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> > index be2b10a391..e1d9b94007 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
> > @@ -5591,7 +5591,7 @@ int __init populate_pt_range(unsigned long virt, unsigned 
> > long nr_mfns)
> >    *
> >    * It is an error to call with present flags over an unpopulated range.
> >    */
> > -int modify_xen_mappings(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, unsigned int nf)
> > +int modify_xen_mappings(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, unsigned int flags)
> I think both of these examples want to stay as nf (new flags).  Flags on
> its own is ambiguous in context, and nf is a common shorthand in our
> pagetable code.
>
> And it will make the patch rather shorter.
>
> ~Andrew
The arm code has its own implementation of modify_xen_mappings()
which uses `flags`.
I put Stefano and Julien in CC, so that if everyone likes `nf` I can 
propagate the change.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)