Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/e820 address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.06.2024 18:12, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/e820.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/e820.c
> @@ -593,79 +593,79 @@ int __init e820_add_range(uint64_t s, uint64_t e, 
> uint32_t type)
>  }
>  
>  int __init e820_change_range_type(
> -    struct e820map *e820, uint64_t s, uint64_t e,
> +    struct e820map *map, uint64_t s, uint64_t e,
>      uint32_t orig_type, uint32_t new_type)
>  {
>      uint64_t rs = 0, re = 0;
>      unsigned int i;
>  
> -    for ( i = 0; i < e820->nr_map; i++ )
> +    for ( i = 0; i < map->nr_map; i++ )
>      {
>          /* Have we found the e820 region that includes the specified range? 
> */
> -        rs = e820->map[i].addr;
> -        re = rs + e820->map[i].size;
> +        rs = map->map[i].addr;

I'm not overly happy with the many instances of map->map that we're now
gaining, but perhaps that's about as good as it can get. Hence
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

As mentioned for patch 1, please remember though to actually describe
what the conflict is in patches like this one. In this case, unless there
ends up being a need to submit another version, I'll try to remember to
add half a sentence while committing.

Jan