On 14/06/23 19:59, Julien Grall wrote:
(+ Bertrand and Stefano)
On 14/06/2023 14:08, Federico Serafini wrote:
Hello everyone,
Hi Federico,
Let me start with a tip to help reaching the maintainers and getting a
more timely answer. Xen-devel has a large volume of e-mails (still
less than Linux :)). So some of us will have filter to try to classify
the e-mails received.
Commonly, all the e-mails where the person is in the CC/To list will
go to the inbox. All the others will go a separate directory that may
or may not be watched. Personally, I tend to glance in that directory,
but I would not read all of them.
So I would highly recommend to CC the maintainers/reviewers of the
specific component. You can find them in MAINTAINERS at the root of
the Xen repository. We also have script like
scripts/get_maintainers.pl that can help you to find who to CC.
If you pass '-f <file>', it will output the maintainers of that file.
You can also use the script with patch to find all the maintainers to CC.
Now back to the subject of the e-mail.
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?
What about solving the violation by moving the function definition in
spinlock.h and declaring it as static inline?
Jan answered it and sent a patch. So I will skip the reply for this one.
The same happens also for the function handle_ro_raz() in the ARM64
build, declared in traps.h and defined in traps.c.
I looked at the history and it is not clear to me why the 'inline' was
added at first. That said, I don't see any value to ask the compiler
to inline (which it would be free to ignore) the function.
So I would suggest to send a patch to remove the 'inline'.
Best regards,
Thank you Julien, very helpful.
