On 2023-11-30 13:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
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no longer applicable (e.g. because of naming 32-bit-only systems).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
Yes
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
