Re: [XEN PATCH 07/10] arm/traps: address a violation of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

On 16/10/2023 10:02, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/10/2023 16:24, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > Add missing parameter name, no functional change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   xen/arch/arm/traps.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > index ce89f16404..5aa14d4707 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
> > @@ -1236,7 +1236,7 @@ int do_bug_frame(const struct cpu_user_regs 
> > *regs, vaddr_t pc)
> >       if ( id == BUGFRAME_run_fn )
> >       {
> > -        void (*fn)(const struct cpu_user_regs *) = (void 
> > *)regs->BUG_FN_REG;
> > +        void (*fn)(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs) = (void 
> > *)regs->BUG_FN_REG;
> Now the line will be over 80 characters. I think we should introduce a 
> typedef. This would also help in the longer run to validate that the 
> function passed to run_in_exception_handle() has the expected prototype.
I see this patch was committed in your for-4.19 branch. But this comment 
was unaddressed. Can you drop the patch because your branch is committed 
in staging?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall