[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH 3/7] xen/sched: address a violation of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
On 05.04.2024 02:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> On 2024-04-03 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 02.04.2024 09:22, Federico Serafini wrote: >>>> Use pseudo-keyword fallthrough to meet the requirements to deviate >>>> MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 ("An unconditional `break' statement shall >>>> terminate every switch-clause"). >>>> >>>> No functional change. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> xen/common/sched/credit2.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/xen/common/sched/credit2.c b/xen/common/sched/credit2.c >>>> index c76330d79d..0962b52415 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/common/sched/credit2.c >>>> +++ b/xen/common/sched/credit2.c >>>> @@ -3152,8 +3152,8 @@ static int cf_check csched2_sys_cntl( >>>> printk(XENLOG_INFO "Disabling context switch rate >>>> limiting\n"); >>>> prv->ratelimit_us = params->ratelimit_us; >>>> write_unlock_irqrestore(&prv->lock, flags); >>>> + fallthrough; >>>> >>>> - /* FALLTHRU */ >>>> case XEN_SYSCTL_SCHEDOP_getinfo: >>>> params->ratelimit_us = prv->ratelimit_us; >>>> break; >>> >>> Hmm, the description doesn't say what's wrong with the comment. Furthermore >>> docs/misra/rules.rst doesn't mention "fallthrough" at all, nor the >>> alternative of using comments. I notice docs/misra/deviations.rst does, and >>> there the specific comment used here isn't covered. That would want saying >>> in the description. >>> >>> Stefano (and others) - in this context it becomes noticeable that having >>> stuff scattered across multiple doc files isn't necessarily helpful. Other >>> permissible keywords are mentioned in rules.rst. The pseudo-keyword >>> "fallthrough" as well as comments are mentioned on deviations.rst. Could >>> you remind me of the reason(s) why things aren't recorded in a single, >>> central place? >>> >>> Jan >> >> If I recall correctly, the idea was to avoid rules.rst from getting too long >> and too specific about which patterns were deviated, while also having a >> precise record of the MISRA deviations that didn't live in ECLAIR-specific >> files. Maybe the use of the pseudo-keyword emerged after the rule was added >> to >> rules.rst, since deviations.rst is updated more frequently. > > Yes exactly. > > I agree with Jan that a single central place is easiest but we cannot > move everything that is in deviations.rst in the note section of the > rules.rst table. Of the two, it would be best to reduce the amount of > notes in rules.rst and move all the deviations listed in rules.rst to > deviations.rst. That way at least the info is present only once, > although they are 2 files. Could every rules.rst section having a deviations.rst counterpart then perhaps have a standardized referral to there? Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |