On 17.04.2024 21:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> Refactor the first clauses so that a violation of
> MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (a switch label should be immediately
> enclosed in the compound statement of the switch).
> Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo
> keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to Rule 16.3.
>
> Convert fallthrough comments in other clauses to the pseudo-keyword
> while at it.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
I did ack a patch with this title, yes, but the content of that patch
was different. Besides all the references to the fallthrough pseudo-
keyword being unrelated to the change below, there's also nothing ...
> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d)
>
> for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
> {
> + /* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by for
> loop*/
> PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown);
>
> rc = vcpu_teardown(v);
... domctl-ish in here. What is going on?
Jan
