[RFC XEN PATCH] x86/mctelem: address violations of MISRA C: 2012 Rule 5.3

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Alessandro Zucchelli <alessandro.zucchelli@xxxxxxxxxxx>

This addresses violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3 which states as
following: An identifier declared in an inner scope shall not hide an
identifier declared in an outer scope. In this case the shadowing is between
local variables "mctctl" and the file-scope static struct variable with the
same name.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Alessandro Zucchelli <alessandro.zucchelli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
RFC because I'm not 100% sure the semantics of the code is preserved.
I think so, and it passes gitlab pipelines [1], but there may be some missing
information.

[1] https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/bugseng/xen/-/pipelines/134025883
---
 xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c 
b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
index b8d0368a7d37..df1a31bffb61 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
@@ -168,14 +168,14 @@ static void mctelem_xchg_head(struct mctelem_ent **headp,
 void mctelem_defer(mctelem_cookie_t cookie, bool lmce)
 {
        struct mctelem_ent *tep = COOKIE2MCTE(cookie);
-       struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl = &this_cpu(mctctl);
+       struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl_cpu = &this_cpu(mctctl);
 
-       ASSERT(mctctl->pending == NULL || mctctl->lmce_pending == NULL);
+       ASSERT(mctctl_cpu->pending == NULL || mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending == NULL);
 
-       if (mctctl->pending)
-               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+       if (mctctl_cpu->pending)
+               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
        else if (lmce)
-               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->lmce_pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending, &tep->mcte_next, 
tep);
        else {
                /*
                 * LMCE is supported on Skylake-server and later CPUs, on
@@ -186,10 +186,10 @@ void mctelem_defer(mctelem_cookie_t cookie, bool lmce)
                 * moment. As a result, the following two exchanges together
                 * can be treated as atomic.
                 */
-               if (mctctl->lmce_pending)
-                       mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->lmce_pending,
-                                         &mctctl->pending, NULL);
-               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+               if (mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending)
+                       mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending,
+                                         &mctctl_cpu->pending, NULL);
+               mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
        }
 }
 
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ void mctelem_process_deferred(unsigned int cpu,
 {
        struct mctelem_ent *tep;
        struct mctelem_ent *head, *prev;
-       struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl = &per_cpu(mctctl, cpu);
+       struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl_cpu = &per_cpu(mctctl, cpu);
        int ret;
 
        /*
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ void mctelem_process_deferred(unsigned int cpu,
         * Any MC# occurring after the following atomic exchange will be
         * handled by another round of MCE softirq.
         */
-       mctelem_xchg_head(lmce ? &mctctl->lmce_pending : &mctctl->pending,
+       mctelem_xchg_head(lmce ? &mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending : 
&mctctl_cpu->pending,
                          &this_cpu(mctctl.processing), NULL);
 
        head = this_cpu(mctctl.processing);
-- 
2.34.1