Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>>>>           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>>>>           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>         },
>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>> +        },
>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>>>> Jan
>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which 
>>>> aren't.
>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly 
>>>> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I 
>>>> think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
>>>
>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and 
>>> "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
>>
>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the 
>> risk that if
>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA 
>> compliance,
>> it will be excluded.
>>
>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.
> 
> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.

It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the
trailing .h.

Jan