Re: [XEN PATCH 4/7] xen/arm: mem_access: 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 code to have a break statement at the end of the
> switch-clause. This addresses violations of 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/mem_access.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c b/xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c
> index 31db846354..fbcb5471f7 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c
> @@ -168,10 +168,10 @@ p2m_mem_access_check_and_get_page(vaddr_t gva, unsigned 
> long flag,
>            * If this was a read then it was because of mem_access, but if it was
>            * a write then the original get_page_from_gva fault was correct.
>            */
> -        if ( flag == GV2M_READ )
> -            break;
> -        else
> +        if ( flag != GV2M_READ )
>               goto err;
> +
> +        break;
On both hunks, I find the original version better as it is easier to 
match with the comment. I also understand that it wouldn't be great to 
add a deviation for this construct. So maybe we should tweak a bit the 
comment?
Anyway, this code is maintained by Tamas, so I will let him confirm 
which version he prefers.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall