Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] x86/hyperlaunch: Add helpers to locate multiboot modules

[Alejandro Vallejo <agarciav@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed Apr 16, 2025 at 5:55 PM BST, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2025-04-15 08:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 14.04.2025 20:01, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On Mon Apr 14, 2025 at 4:05 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.04.2025 15:37, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>> On Thu Apr 10, 2025 at 11:42 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> Functions without callers and non-static ones without declarations 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> disliked by Misra.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can't do much about it if I want them to stand alone in a single 
>>>>> patch.
>>>>> Otherwise the following ones become quite unwieldy to look at. All I 
>>>>> can
>>>>> say is that this function becomes static and with a caller on the 
>>>>> next
>>>>> patch.
>>>> 
>>>> Which means you need to touch this again anyway. Perhaps we need a 
>>>> Misra
>>>> deviation for __maybe_unused functions / data, in which case you 
>>>> could
>>>> use that here and strip it along with making the function static. 
>>>> Cc-ing
>>>> Bugseng folks.
>>> 
>>> It's a transient violation, sure. Do we care about transient MISRA
>>> violations though? I understand the importance of bisectability, but
>>> AUIU MISRA compliance matters to the extent that that the tip is
>>> compliant rather than the intermediate steps?
>> 
>> Thing is that quite a few rules are blocking now. I haven't checked 
>> whether
>> the one here (already) is; if it isn't, we can't exclude it will be by 
>> the
>> time this patch is committed. If then the next patch isn't committed
>> together with it, we'd face a CI failure.
>> 
>
> It's Rule 8.4, and it is indeed blocking. To double check, a scan on a 
> push containing this patch should trigger the failure.
> You may transitively add an inline deviation comment or just a deviation 
> with a configuration (I can help if needed), justified by the subsequent 
> addition of static.

Thanks for the context!

If I'm going to add something and remove it later might as well add the
missing declaration and remove it when static-ifying the function.
Particularly because I don't see a suitable x in SAFE-x-safe to use. (1
or 13 may work, but they hardly reflect what's being done.)

My bad for (mis)assuming transient states merely required bisectability
rather than full MISRA compliance. 

Cheers,
Alejandro