Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-13 Thread Jan Beulich
On 12.07.2025 00:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >> Hi All. >> >> In this 2nd version I made changes according to the >> https://patchew.org/Xen/d92cf08a64d8197a1d1a45f901e59183105d3da5.1752183472.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ >> >> There are 0 v

Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: > Hi All. > > In this 2nd version I made changes according to the > https://patchew.org/Xen/d92cf08a64d8197a1d1a45f901e59183105d3da5.1752183472.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ > > There are 0 violations on the ARM64 as you can see in the report:

Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Dmytro Prokopchuk1
On 7/11/25 14:52, Dmytro Prokopchuk wrote: > Hi All. > > In this 2nd version I made changes according to the > https://patchew.org/Xen/ > d92cf08a64d8197a1d1a45f901e59183105d3da5.1752183472.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ > > There are 0 violations on the ARM64 as you can see in the report

Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Dmytro Prokopchuk1
On 7/11/25 15:03, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 11.07.2025 13:43, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/memory.c >> +++ b/xen/common/memory.c >> @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ static long >> memory_exchange(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_memory_exchange_t) arg) >> >> nrspin_lock(&d->page

Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Jan Beulich
On 11.07.2025 13:43, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: > --- a/xen/common/memory.c > +++ b/xen/common/memory.c > @@ -773,7 +773,7 @@ static long > memory_exchange(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_memory_exchange_t) arg) > > nrspin_lock(&d->page_alloc_lock); > drop_dom_ref = (

Re: [XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Dmytro Prokopchuk1
Hi All. In this 2nd version I made changes according to the https://patchew.org/Xen/d92cf08a64d8197a1d1a45f901e59183105d3da5.1752183472.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ There are 0 violations on the ARM64 as you can see in the report: https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-proj

[XEN PATCH v2] misra: address violation of MISRA C Rule 10.1

2025-07-11 Thread Dmytro Prokopchuk1
Rule 10.1: Operands shall not be of an inappropriate essential type The following are non-compliant: - unary minus on unsigned type; - boolean used as a numeric value. Precede unary '-' operator with casting to signed type. Replace numeric constant '-1UL' with '~0UL'. Replace numeric constant '-1