[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH 5/7] xen/arm: v{cp,sys}reg: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:55:25 +0100
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: consulting@xxxxxxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:55:32 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 20.12.2023 12:48, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 20/12/2023 11:03, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> --- 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).
While (it doesn't matter here) my view on this is different, I'm still
puzzled why the tool would complain / why a change here is necessary.
It is not _one_ return statement, but there's still (and obviously) no
way of falling through.
> But I have the feeling any other solution would probably be
> worse.
Use the conditional operator?
Jan
> So:
>
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
>
|
