On 30/11/2023 12:00 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-11-30 08:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The rule demands that all array elements be initialized (or dedicated
>> initializers be used). Introduce a small set of macros to allow doing so
>> without unduly affecting use sites (in particular in terms of how many
>> elements .matches[] actually has; right now there's no use of
>> DMI_MATCH4(), so we could even consider reducing the array size to 3).
>>
>> Note that DMI_MATCH() needs adjustment because of the comma included in
>> its expansion, which - due to being unparenthesized - would otherwise
>> cause macro arguments in the "further replacement" step to be wrong.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> ---
>> Of course a question is how many of these DMI table entries are in fact
>> no longer applicable (e.g. because of naming 32-bit-only systems).
>> Subsequently the table in dmi_scan.c itself may want cleaning up as
>> well, yet I guess the question of stale entries is even more relevant
>> there.
>>
>> An alternative to using the compound literal approach might be to go
>> along the lines of
>>
>> #define DMI_MATCH4(m1, m2, m3, m4) .matches = { [0] = m1, [1] = m2,
>> [2] = m3, [3] = m4 }
>>
>> I've chosen the other approach mainly because of being slightly shorter.
>>
>
> From a MISRA perspective this resolves all but one violation: the
> initialization of static array
>
> ns16550_com[2] = { { 0 } };
>
> in drivers/char/ns16550.c. This is a case where the explicit
> initializer looks unnecessary.
>
Yeah. That should just be ={}; which ought to resolve the violation?
~Andrew
