Re: [XEN PATCH v2 00/10] address violations of MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 25.10.2023 23:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 25/10/2023 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 25.10.2023 17:58, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/2023 09:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 24.10.2023 21:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>> If I understood correctly I am fine with that. To make sure we are all
>>>>>> on the same page, can you provide a couple of samples?
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking the earlier example, instead of DRIVERS_PASSTHROUGH_VTD_DMAR_H it
>>>>> would then be VTD_DMAR_H. arch/x86/pv/mm.h would use PV_MM_H, but then
>>>>> you can already see that a hypothetical arch/x86/mm.h would use
>>>>> X86_MM_H,
>>>>> thus colliding with what your proposal would also yield for
>>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/mm.h. So maybe private header guards should come
>>>>> with e.g. a trailing underscore? Or double underscores as component
>>>>> separators, where .../include/... use only single underscores? Or
>>>>> headers in arch/*/include/asm/ use ASM_<name>_H (i.e. not making the
>>>>> architecture explicit in the guard name, on the grounds that headers
>>>>> from multiple architectures shouldn't be included at the same time)?
>>>> Thanks for providing some details.  The proposal for private headers
>>>> make sense. For arch/.../include/asm/ headers, I would strongly prefer
>>>> if we use prefix them with ASM_*.
>>>>
>>>> As a side note, I am guessing for asm-generic, we would want to use
>>>> ASM_GENERIC_* for the guard prefix. Is that correct?
>>>
>>> That was an assumption I was working from, yes. Could also be just
>>> GENERIC_ afaic.
>>
>> Thanks for the confirmation. I am fine with either GENERIC_ or ASM_GENERIC_.
> 
> OK. So in summary:
> - arch/.../include/asm/ headers would use ASM_<filename>_H
> - private headers would use <dir>_<filename>_H
> - asm-generic headers would use ASM_GENERIC_<filename>_H
> 
> If that's agreed, we can move forward with the patch following this
> scheme.

FTAOD - just as long as <dir> is clarified to mean only the leaf-most
directory component (assuming we're still talking about the most
recently proposed scheme and we deem the risk of collisions low enough
there).

Jan