Hi, I forgot to CC the maintainers.
On 23/10/2023 18:52, Julien Grall wrote:
From: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com> The 'break' the XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size is unreachable and tools like Eclair will report as a violation of Misra Rule 2.1. Furthermore, the nested switch is not very easy to read. So move out the nested switch in a separate function to improve the readability and hopefully address the MISRA violation. Reported-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com> --- Only compiled tested. Waiting for the CI to confirm there is no regression. --- xen/arch/arm/arm64/domctl.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/domctl.c b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/domctl.c index 14fc622e9956..8720d126c97d 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/arm64/domctl.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/arm64/domctl.c @@ -33,27 +33,31 @@ static long switch_mode(struct domain *d, enum domain_type type) return 0; }+static long set_address_size(struct domain *d, uint32_t address_size)+{ + switch ( address_size ) + { + case 32: + if ( !cpu_has_el1_32 ) + return -EINVAL; + /* SVE is not supported for 32 bit domain */ + if ( is_sve_domain(d) ) + return -EINVAL; + return switch_mode(d, DOMAIN_32BIT); + case 64: + return switch_mode(d, DOMAIN_64BIT); + default: + return -EINVAL; + } +} + long subarch_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain *d, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) { switch ( domctl->cmd ) { case XEN_DOMCTL_set_address_size: - switch ( domctl->u.address_size.size ) - { - case 32: - if ( !cpu_has_el1_32 ) - return -EINVAL; - /* SVE is not supported for 32 bit domain */ - if ( is_sve_domain(d) ) - return -EINVAL; - return switch_mode(d, DOMAIN_32BIT); - case 64: - return switch_mode(d, DOMAIN_64BIT); - default: - return -EINVAL; - } - break; + return set_address_size(d, domctl->u.address_size.size);default:return -ENOSYS;
-- Julien Grall
