On 21/12/2023 8:08 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.12.2023 22:35, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 20/12/2023 11:03 am, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>> This patch series addresses violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3 on the Arm
>>> code. No fucntional changes are introduced.
>>>
>>> Federico Serafini (7):
>>> xen/arm: gic-v3: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: traps: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: guest_walk: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: mem_access: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: v{cp,sys}reg: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: mmu: address a violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>> xen/arm: smmu-v3: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3
>>>
>>> xen/arch/arm/arm64/vsysreg.c | 4 ++--
>>> xen/arch/arm/gic-v3.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> xen/arch/arm/guest_walk.c | 4 ++++
>>> xen/arch/arm/mem_access.c | 12 +++++------
>>> xen/arch/arm/mmu/p2m.c | 1 +
>>> xen/arch/arm/traps.c | 18 ++++++++++++----
>>> xen/arch/arm/vcpreg.c | 4 ++--
>>> xen/drivers/passthrough/arm/smmu-v3.c | 2 ++
>>> 8 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Just a couple of notes on style. This isn't a request to change
>> anything in this series, particularly as most is already committed, but
>> bear it in mind for what I expect will be similar patches in other areas.
>>
>> We explicitly permit tabulation when it aids readibility, so patch 2
>> could have been written:
>>
>> switch ( hypercall_args[*nr] ) {
>> case 5: HYPERCALL_ARG5(regs) = 0xDEADBEEFU; fallthrough;
>> case 4: HYPERCALL_ARG4(regs) = 0xDEADBEEFU; fallthrough;
>> case 3: HYPERCALL_ARG3(regs) = 0xDEADBEEFU; fallthrough;
>> case 2: HYPERCALL_ARG2(regs) = 0xDEADBEEFU; fallthrough;
>> case 1: /* Don't clobber x0/r0 -- it's the return value */
>> case 0: /* -ENOSYS case */
>> break;
>> default: BUG();
>> }
>>
>> (give or take the brace placement other style issue) We also have cases
>> where a break before a new case statement is preferred, i.e.:
> Did you mean "blank line" here, seeing ...
>
>> ...
>> break;
>>
>> case ...:
>>
>> This is to prevent larger switch statements from being a straight wall
>> of text.
> ... this as the further explanation?
Urgh yes - I did mean blank line. Hopefully the intent was clear.
~Andrew
