Re: [BUGGY] Re: [XEN PATCH] x86: Address violations of MISRA C:2012 and drop bool_t

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/08/23 14:31, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 3:11 pm, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > Give a name to unnamed parameters to address violations of
> > MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2 ("Function types shall be in prototype form with
> > named parameters").
> > Keep consistency between object and function declarations thus
> > addressing violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.3 ("All declarations of an
> > object or function shall use the same names and type qualifiers").
> > Replace the occurrences of bool_t with bool.
> >
> > No functional change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c            |  6 +++---
> >   xen/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 16 ++++++++--------
> >   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> > index cfcdaace12..5f29148416 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> > @@ -26,11 +26,11 @@
> >   
> >   bool __read_mostly opt_dom0_cpuid_faulting = true;
> >   
> > -bool_t opt_arat = 1;
> > +bool opt_arat = 1;
> >   boolean_param("arat", opt_arat);
> I see this has been committed, but you do realise you've created a new
> violation of 8.3 by failing to change the declaration of opt_arat to be
> bool ?
>
> Please everyone be more careful.  There is an enormous amount of MISRA
> churn, and it's hard enough to deal with this when the patches are correct.
>
> ~Andrew
I'm sorry, I noticed too late.
I will submit a patch to address the new violations.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

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