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

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-12-20 09:50, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > On 20 Dec 2023, at 08:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> Yes, with the extension is better, the same as we already do here:
>
> [...]
> {
>     "rel_path": "common/un*.c”,
>     "comment": "unlz4.c implementation by Yann Collet, the others un* 
> are from Linux, ignore for now"
> },
> [...]
Ok, I'll send a v2

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)