On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Coming back to 18.2: it makes sense for Xen and the scanners today work > > well with this rule, so I think we are fine. > > I disagree.
OK. I'll resend this patch, removing 18.2. I'll mark it appropriately in the sheet as well. > Looking back at the sheet, it says "rule already followed by > the community in most cases" which I assume was based on there being > only very few violations that are presently reported. Now we've found > the frame_table[] issue, I'm inclined to say that the statement was put > there by mistake (due to that oversight). cppcheck is unable to find violations; we know cppcheck has limitations and that's OK. Eclair is excellent and finds violations (including the frame_table[] issue you mentioned), but currently it doesn't read configs from xen.git and we cannot run a test to see if adding a couple of deviations for 2 macros removes most of the violations. If we want to use Eclair as a reference (could be a good idea) then I think we need a better integration. I'll talk to Roberto and see if we can arrange something better. I am writing this with the assumption that if I could show that, as an example, adding 2 deviations reduces the Eclair violations down to less than 10, then we could adopt the rule. Do you think that would be acceptable in your opinion, as a process?
