Re: [XEN PATCH v3] x86: p2m-pod: address violation of MISRA C Rule 2.1

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024-12-10 13:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.12.2024 11:54, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > Rule 2.1 states: "A project shall not contain unreachable code".
> >
> > The placement of the loop after "out_unmap" can be moved earlier
> > in order to avoid the unconditional return to be marked as a cause of
> > unreachability for the loop, as this is a consequence of
> > "__builtin_unreachable" being configured in ECLAIR as being 
> > deliberately
> > unreachable, and therefore not reported as causing the code after the
> > "out_unmap" label to be unreachable.
> >
> > Replacing one instance of "goto out_unmap" with the loop avoids
> > considering the unconditional return at the end of the function as a 
> > cause
> > of unreachability, while preserving the semantics of the function.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> with ...
Thanks

> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
> > @@ -1005,7 +1005,14 @@ p2m_pod_zero_check(struct p2m_domain *p2m, 
> > const gfn_t *gfns, unsigned int count
> >              {
> >                  ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> >                  domain_crash(d);
> > -                goto out_unmap;
> > +out_unmap:
> ... the label indented by one or more blanks, as per ./CODING_STYLE.
> Happy to adjust while committing.
Right, I followed the style used in this file assuming that it was in 
line with CODING_STYLE, but I now see that this is not the case. No 
problem either way.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)