On 30.08.2023 14:53, Simone Ballarin wrote: > On 29/08/23 00:10, Julien Grall wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 09:20, Simone Ballarin <simone.balla...@bugseng.com> >> wrote: >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/hypercall.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/hypercall.h >>> @@ -1,10 +1,10 @@ >>> +#ifndef __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ >>> +#define __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ >>> + >>> #ifndef __XEN_HYPERCALL_H__ >>> #error "asm/hypercall.h should not be included directly - include >>> xen/hypercall.h instead" >>> #endif >>> >>> -#ifndef __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ >>> -#define __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ >>> - >> >> >> I understand that you are trying to fix a misra violation. However, this >> feels like it was done on purpose. >> >> With the new change, you would not always check that the file were included >> at the correct place. I am not against this change but this ought to be >> explained. > I don't think the semantics have changed. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > With this change, the only situation where the check is not performed is > when __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ is defined (i.e. the file has already been > successfully included). This implies that if __ASM_ARM_HYPERCALL_H__ is > defined, then __XEN_HYPERCALL_H__ is also defined, so the check would be > useless. > > The same thing happened with the code before the change: if I include > the file after xen/hypercall.h, the check will always succeed.
Hmm, I think you're right, but I draw a different conclusion: The check fails to work as intended. And this can only be repaired without your adjustment. Jan
