Re: [XEN PATCH 5/7] xen/arm: v{cp,sys}reg: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Federico,

On 20/12/2023 11:03, Federico Serafini wrote:
> Refactor of the switch-clauses to have a return statement at the end.
> This satisfies the requirements to deviate Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional
> `break' statement shall terminate every switch-clause).
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c | 4 ++--
>   xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c        | 4 ++--
>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c
> index b5d54c569b..247f08ad8d 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c
> @@ -210,8 +210,8 @@ void do_sysreg(struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
>           /* RO at EL0. RAZ/WI at EL1 */
>           if ( regs_mode_is_user(regs) )
>               return handle_ro_raz(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 0);
> -        else
> -            return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1);
> +
> +        return handle_raz_wi(regs, regidx, hsr.sysreg.read, hsr, 1);
I don't 100% like this change (mostly because I find if/else clearer 
here). But I have the feeling any other solution would probably be 
worse. So:
Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall