On 27.01.2023 19:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 26.01.2023 19:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> 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?
Hmm, to be quite honest: Not sure. Having noticed the oversight of the frame_table[] issue makes me wonder how much else may be missed in this same area (18.1, 18.2, and 18.3). Jan
