[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [XEN PATCH v2] x86: p2m-pod: address violation of MISRA C Rule 2.1
On 10.09.2024 11:53, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2024-09-10 11:08, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 10.09.2024 10:56, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 2024-07-01 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 28.06.2024 08:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> This being about unreachable code, why are the domain_crash() not the >>>> crucial points of "unreachability"? And even if they weren't there, >>>> why >>>> wouldn't it be the goto or ... >>>> >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c >>>>> @@ -1040,6 +1040,7 @@ out_unmap: >>>>> * Something went wrong, probably crashing the domain. Unmap >>>>> * everything and return. >>>>> */ >>>>> + /* SAF-8-safe Rule 2.1: defensive programming */ >>>>> for ( i = 0; i < count; i++ ) >>>>> if ( map[i] ) >>>>> unmap_domain_page(map[i]); >>>> >>>> ... the label (just out of context) where the comment needs to go? >>> >>> Because of the way this rule's configuration work, deviations are >>> placed >>> on the construct that ends up being the target of the unreachability, >> >> What's "target" here? What if this loop was removed from the function? >> Then both the label and the domain_crash() invocations would still be >> unreachable in debug builds. Are you telling me that this then wouldn't >> be diagnosed by Eclair? Or that it would then consider the closing >> figure brace of the function "the target of the unreachability"? > > Exactly, the end brace is a target to which the "function end" construct > is associated. > It would be kind of strange, though: why not just doing "domain_crash(); > return;" in that case? Sure, the question was theoretical. Now if "return" was used directly there, what would then be the "target"? IOW - the more abstract question of my earlier reply still wasn't answered. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |