On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json >>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@ >>>>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h", >>>>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>> }, >>>>>> + { >>>>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h", >>>>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now" >>>>>> + }, >>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be >>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all >>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also >>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)? >>>>> Jan >>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu >>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which >>>> aren't. >>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly >>>> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I >>>> think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this. >>> >>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and >>> "include/acpi/platform/ac*". >> >> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the >> risk that if >> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA >> compliance, >> it will be excluded. >> >> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine. > > I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.
It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the trailing .h. Jan
