[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1
- To: Dmytro Prokopchuk1 <dmytro_prokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 14:03:51 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 12:04:06 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 11.07.2025 13:43, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/memory.c
> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c
> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ static long
> memory_exchange(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_memory_exchange_t) arg)
>
> nrspin_lock(&d->page_alloc_lock);
> drop_dom_ref = (dec_count &&
> - !domain_adjust_tot_pages(d, -dec_count));
> + !domain_adjust_tot_pages(d,
> -(long)dec_count));
Here and elsewhere I continue to think that we would better avoid casts
in such cases as well, just like we try to minimize their use everywhere
else.
> --- a/xen/common/time.c
> +++ b/xen/common/time.c
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ struct tm gmtime(unsigned long t)
> }
> tbuf.tm_year = y - 1900;
> tbuf.tm_yday = days;
> - ip = (const unsigned short int *)__mon_lengths[__isleap(y)];
> + ip = (const unsigned short int *)__mon_lengths[__isleap(y) ? 1 : 0];
If an expression is needed here, I'd suggest to use !!, as we have in
(luckily decreasing) number of places elsewhere. Personally I don't
understand though why a boolean cannot be used as an array index.
> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int queue_poll_cons(struct arm_smmu_queue *q, bool
> sync, bool wfe)
>
> while (queue_sync_cons_in(q),
> (sync ? !queue_empty(&q->llq) : queue_full(&q->llq))) {
> - if ((NOW() > timeout) > 0)
> + if (NOW() > timeout)
> return -ETIMEDOUT;
How does this change fit here?
Jan
|
