Hi Stefano, > On Oct 10, 2023, at 09:19, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > > +Henry
Thank you. > > 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 I am fine with that as this patch is purely doc changes. Release-acked-by: Henry Wang <henry.w...@arm.com> Kind regards, Henry > > >> --- >> 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 >
