On 08.02.2024 08:55, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> These two files contain several deliberate violations of MISRA C rules and
> they are not linked in the final Xen binary, therefore they can be exempted
> from MISRA compliance.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
> ---
> Since the exclude list only contains arm64 and x86 files I reasoned that
> introducing an entry that would match all architectures would not be desirable
> (e.g., arm32). I'm happy to change that, though.
Just wanted to ask - if globs are permitted, I'd favor covering all possible
architectures. It is certainly expected that they all follow suit. Just that
in the absence of sub-architectures the path would be xen/arch/*/asm-offsets.c
(and it's quite possible that we may, over time, morph x86 to a sub-arch-less
form).
Jan
> ---
> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> index 7971d0e70f5b..bd05478e03e9 100644
> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@
> "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/lib/find_next_bit.c",
> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> },
> + {
> + "rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/asm-offsets.c",
> + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen
> binary, ignore for now"
> + },
> {
> "rel_path": "arch/x86/acpi/boot.c",
> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@
> "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/mmconf-fam10h.c",
> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> },
> + {
> + "rel_path": "arch/x86/x86_64/asm-offsets.c",
> + "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen
> binary, ignore for now"
> + },
> {
> "rel_path": "arch/x86/efi/check.c",
> "comment": "The resulting code is not included in the final Xen
> binary, ignore for now"
