Re: [XEN PATCH 4/5] automation/eclair_analysis: address remaining violations of MISRA C Rule 20.12

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 03.06.2024 21:12, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2024-06-03 20:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.06.2024 09:13, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-03 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2024 12:16, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>>>> @@ -483,6 +483,12 @@ leads to a violation of the Rule are deviated."
>>>>>  -config=MC3R1.R20.12,macros+={deliberate,
>>>>> "name(GENERATE_CASE)&&loc(file(deliberate_generate_case))"}
>>>>>  -doc_end
>>>>>
>>>>> +-doc_begin="The macro DEFINE is defined and used in excluded files
>>>>> asm-offsets.c.
>>>>> +This may still cause violations if entities outside these files are
>>>>> referred to
>>>>> +in the expansion."
>>>>> +-config=MC3R1.R20.12,macros+={deliberate,
>>>>> "name(DEFINE)&&loc(file(asm_offsets))"}
>>>>> +-doc_end
>>>>
>>>> Can you give an example of such a reference? Nothing _in_ 
>>>> asm-offsets.c
>>>> should be referenced, I'd think. Only stuff in asm-offsets.h as
>>>> _generated
>>>> from_ asm-offsets.c will, of course, be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I could have expressed that more clearly. What I meant is that
>>> there are some arguments to DEFINE that are not part of asm-offsets.c,
>>> therefore they end up in the violation report, but are not actually
>>> relevant, because the macro DEFINE is actually what we want to 
>>> exclude.
>>>
>>> See for instance at the link below VCPU_TRAP_{NMI,MCE}, which are
>>> defined in asm/domain.h and used as arguments to DEFINE inside
>>> asm-offsets.c.
>>>
>>> https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/XEN.ecdf/ECLAIR_normal/staging/X86_64-BUGSENG/676/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service/MC3R1.R20.12.html
>>
>> I'm afraid I still don't understand: The file being supposed to be
>> excluded from scanning, why does it even show up in that report?
> 
> The report is made up of several source code locations. Three of them 
> are within asm-offsets.c, which is excluded from compliance but still 
> analyzed, but one references a macro definition in another file (e.g., 
> VCPU_TRAP_NMI from asm/domain.h). So in this case the exclusion of 
> asm-offsets.c is not enough for the report not to be shown.

But the (would-be-)violation is in asm-offsets.c. The other locations
pointed at are providing context. To report a violation, it should be
enough to exclude the file where the violation itself is?

Jan