+Henry On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > This file contains the deviation that are not marked by > a deviation comment, as specified in > docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst. > > Suggested-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
This is great! Thank you so much! I have a few questions below but even as-is it is way better than nothing. I think we should add this for 4.18 > --- > docs/index.rst | 1 + > docs/misra/deviations.rst | 240 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > docs/misra/rules.rst | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 docs/misra/deviations.rst > > diff --git a/docs/index.rst b/docs/index.rst > index 2c47cfa999f2..f3f779f89ce5 100644 > --- a/docs/index.rst > +++ b/docs/index.rst > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ Xen hypervisor code. > :maxdepth: 2 > > misra/rules > + misra/deviations > > > Miscellanea > diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..19743e34ce03 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,240 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0 > + > +MISRA C deviations for Xen > +========================== > + > +The following is the list of MISRA C:2012 deviations for the Xen codebase > that > +are not covered by a `SAF-x-safe` or `SAF-x-false-positive-<tool>` comment, > as > +specified in docs/misra/documenting-violations.rst; the lack of > +such comments is usually due to the excessive clutter they would bring to the > +codebase or the impossibility to express such a deviation (e.g., if it's > +composed of several conditions). > + > +Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Directives: > +---------------------------------------------- > + > +.. list-table:: > + :header-rows: 1 > + > + * - Directive identifier > + - Justification > + - Notes > + > + * - D4.3 > + - Accepted for the ARM64 codebase > + - Tagged as `disapplied` for ECLAIR on any other violation report. This mean it has been applied for ARM64 but not x86, right? > + * - D4.3 > + - The inline asm in 'xen/arch/arm/arm64/lib/bitops.c' is tightly coupled > + with the surronding C code that acts as a wrapper, so it has been > decided > + not to add an additional encapsulation layer. > + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. > + > +Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: > +----------------------------------------- > + > +.. list-table:: > + :header-rows: 1 > + > + * - Rule identifier > + - Justification > + - Notes > + > + * - R2.1 > + - The compiler implementation guarantees that the unreachable code is > + removed. Constant expressions and unreachable branches of if and > switch > + statements are expected. > + - Tagged as `safe` for ECLAIR. > + > + * - R2.1 > + - Some functions are intended not to be referenced. > + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. What does it mean "some functions" in this case? Should we list which functions? Other than this, I checked and everything else looks great
