On 14.06.2023 15:08, Federico Serafini wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am working on the violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.10, > whose headline says: > "An inline function shall be declared with the static storage class". > > For both ARM64 and X86_64 builds, > function _spin_lock_cb() defined in spinlock.c violates the rule. > Such function is declared in spinlock.h without > the inline function specifier: are there any reasons to do this?
Since this function was mentioned elsewhere already, I'm afraid I have to be a little blunt and ask back: Did you check the history of the function. Yes, it is intentional to be that way, for the function to be inlined into _spin_lock(), and for it to also be available for external callers (we have just one right now, but that could change). > What about solving the violation by moving the function definition in > spinlock.h and declaring it as static inline? Did you try whether that would work at least purely mechanically? I'm afraid you'll find that it doesn't, because of LOCK_PROFILE_* being unavailable then. Yet we also don't want to expose all that in the header. In the earlier context I did suggest already to make the function an always-inline one in spinlock.c, under a slightly altered name, and then have _spin_lock_cb() be a trivial wrapper just like _spin_lock() is. I guess best is going to be if I make and post a patch ... Jan
