Re: [XEN PATCH 2/3] xen/sched: address violation of MISRA C Rule 8.2

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 15.02.2025 00:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> Rule 8.2 states: "Function types shall be in prototype form with
>> named parameters".
>>
>> The parameter name is missing from the function pointer type
>> that constitutes the first parameter.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> This small fix is needed in order to keep the rule clean in the
>> follow-up patch that changes the Xen configuration under static
>> analysis.
>>
>> I wasn't really certain about the right name to give to the parameter,
>> so if there are better options I'd be happy to accept them.
>> ---
>>  xen/common/sched/rt.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

This is a specific scheduler you touch, which I think wants expressing
somehow (e.g. via an adjusted prefix) in the patch subject.

>> --- a/xen/common/sched/rt.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/sched/rt.c
>> @@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ deadline_queue_remove(struct list_head *queue, struct 
>> list_head *elem)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static inline bool
>> -deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *),
>> +deadline_queue_insert(struct rt_unit * (*qelem)(struct list_head *q_iter),
> 
> I think it should be "elem" instead of "q_iter"

Why would it matter what the name is? There's no separate decl to stay in
sync with. (That said, I'd be happy with "elem"; it'll be a matter of the
maintainers to judge.)

Jan