Re: [XEN PATCH v2] docs/misra: add asm-offset.c to exclude-list

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024-02-09 13:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 09/02/2024 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 09.02.2024 10:40, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Replying on the v2 as well.
> > And answering here despite the respective question was raised on the
> > v1 thread: I'm certainly okay with the more detailed commit message.
> Ah yes. Sorry, I replied to v1 first and then realized it may have been 
> easier to comment on v2.
> > A few nits, though:
> >
> > > On 08/02/2024 15:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 08.02.2024 16:50, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > > > These files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules 
> > > > > and
> > > > > they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be 
> > > > > exempted
> > > > > from MISRA compliance.
> > > I'd like the commit message to be expanded a little bit to explain 
> > > which
> > > MISRA rules are a problem. This helped me to understand why we 
> > > excluded
> > > rather than fixed.
> > >
> > > Base on the previous discussion, I would suggest:
> > >
> > > These files contain several deliberate violation of MISRA C rules 
> > > such as:
> > violations
> >
> > >     * R20.12 on Arm for macros DEFINE and OFFSET, where the second
> > > argument of OFFSET is a macro and is used as a normal parameter and a
> > > stringification operand.
> > Is this really for Arm only?
> I don't exactly know. I took Nicola's comment and massage it for the 
> commit message. I am assuming that this was also not exhaustive list, 
> so my aim was to only provide some example.
Yes, indeed. I mentioned the first two examples that I remembered.

> Thinking of it, I don't see why it would only be a problem on Arm. I 
> can drop the "on Arm".
My bad, I missed it in the output. Please drop the "on Arm" part.

> > >     * R2.1 because the file is not linked That said it was decided to
> > > deviate the rule itselfed to deviate that aspect).
> > There look to be punctuation issues here. Also s/itselfed/itself/, and
> > the duplicate "deviate" is also a little odd to read (maybe "deal 
> > with"
> > or "address" in place of the 2nd instance).
> Doh, indeed. This wants to be:
>
> "R2.1 because the file is not linked. That said, it was decided to 
> deviate the ruule itself to address that aspect."
                                                                         
        ^ rule
> > > The files are also not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they
> > > can be expempted from MISRA compliance.
> > Looks to duplicate what the latter half of the 2nd bullet point has.
> > If to be kept: s/expempted/exempted/.
> I will remove.
>
> > > > > --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> > > > > +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> > > > > @@ -101,6 +101,10 @@
> > > > >                "rel_path": "arch/x86/efi/check.c",
> > > > >                "comment": "The resulting code is not included in 
> > > > > the final Xen binary, ignore for now"
> > > > >            },
> > > > > +        {
> > > > > +          "rel_path": "arch/*/*/asm-offsets.c",
> > > > > +          "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the 
> > > > > final Xen binary, ignore for now"
> > > > > +        },
> > > > >            {
> > > > >                "rel_path": "common/coverage/*",
> > > > >                "comment": "Files to support gcov, ignore for now"
> > > > ... something looks odd with indentation; can probably be adjusted
> > > > while committing.
> > > I am happy to take care of both the commit message and the 
> > > indentation
> > > on commit.
> > Okay, I'll leave that to you then.
> Thanks. I will do it shortly.
Thanks,

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