Re: [XEN PATCH 1/5] xen/common: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/11/23 03:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > diff --git a/xen/common/stop_machine.c b/xen/common/stop_machine.c
> > index 3adbe380de..398cfd507c 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/stop_machine.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/stop_machine.c
> > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct stopmachine_data {
> >   
> >       unsigned int fn_cpu;
> >       int fn_result;
> > -    int (*fn)(void *);
> > +    int (*fn)(void *data);
> >       void *fn_data;
> >   };
> At least one of the possible function used here calls the parameter
> "arg", see take_cpu_down. But I don't think it is a MISRA requirement to
> also harmonize those?
>
>
> > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void stopmachine_wait_state(void)
> >    * mandatory to be called only on an idle vcpu, as otherwise active core
> >    * scheduling might hang.
> >    */
> > -int stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, unsigned int cpu)
> > +int stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *data), void *data, unsigned int cpu)
> >   {
> >       unsigned int i, nr_cpus;
> >       unsigned int this = smp_processor_id();
> > diff --git a/xen/common/tasklet.c b/xen/common/tasklet.c
> > index 3ad67b5c24..3649798e6b 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/tasklet.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/tasklet.c
> > @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ static void migrate_tasklets_from_cpu(unsigned int cpu, 
> > struct list_head *list)
> >       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklet_lock, flags);
> >   }
> >   
> > -void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *), void *data)
> > +void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *data), void *data)
> >   {
> >       memset(t, 0, sizeof(*t));
> >       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&t->list);
> > @@ -208,7 +208,8 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *), 
> > void *data)
> >       t->data = data;
> >   }
> >   
> > -void softirq_tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *), void *data)
> > +void softirq_tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t,
> > +                          void (*func)(void *data), void *data)
> >   {
> >       tasklet_init(t, func, data);
> >       t->is_softirq = 1;
> > diff --git a/xen/common/timer.c b/xen/common/timer.c
> > index 0fddfa7487..bf7792dcb3 100644
> > --- a/xen/common/timer.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/timer.c
> > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ static bool active_timer(const struct timer *timer)
> >   
> >   void init_timer(
> >       struct timer *timer,
> > -    void        (*function)(void *),
> > +    void        (*function)(void *data),
> >       void         *data,
> >       unsigned int  cpu)
> >   {
> > @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ void kill_timer(struct timer *timer)
> >   
> >   static void execute_timer(struct timers *ts, struct timer *t)
> >   {
> > -    void (*fn)(void *) = t->function;
> > +    void (*fn)(void *data) = t->function;
> >       void *data = t->data;
> >   
> >       t->status = TIMER_STATUS_inactive;
> > diff --git a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
> > index 135f33f606..390f7b6082 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
> > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ bool_t __must_check rangeset_overlaps_range(
> >       struct rangeset *r, unsigned long s, unsigned long e);
> >   int rangeset_report_ranges(
> >       struct rangeset *r, unsigned long s, unsigned long e,
> > -    int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, void *), void *ctxt);
> > +    int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, void *data), void *ctxt);
> Also here some of the functions use "arg" instead of ctxt
>
>
> >   /*
> >    * Note that the consume function can return an error value apart from
> > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
> >    */
> >   int rangeset_consume_ranges(struct rangeset *r,
> >                               int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e,
> > -                                      void *, unsigned long *c),
> > +                                      void *ctxt, unsigned long *c),
> >                               void *ctxt);
> Also here some of the functions use "dom" like irq_remove_cb.
>
>
> But I actually like the patch as is, so if that's OK from a MISRA point
> of view then I would give my reviewed-by.
Yes, this is OK for MISRA.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

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