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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 20.12.2023 13:15, Federico Serafini wrote:
> On 20/12/23 12:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The tool is configurable:
> if you prefer deviate these cases instead of refactoring the code
> I can update the configuration.

I guess this then needs to be discussed on the first call in the new year.
Stefano - can you take note of that, please?

Jan