On 13.12.2023 15:44, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-12-12 10:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.12.2023 10:12, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-12 02:42, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>> The "return 0" after the swich statement in 'xen/arch/x86/mm.c'
>>>>> is unreachable because all switch clauses end with returns.
>>>>> However, some of them can be substituted with "break"s to allow
>>>>> the "return 0" outside the switch to be reachable.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional changes.
>>>>
>>>> This is correct but makes the code inconsistent. I would either
>>>> remove
>>>> the return 0; at the end of arch_memory_op, or do the following:
>>>>
>>>> - initialize rc to 0 at the beginning: int rc = 0;
>>>> - all switch clauses break instead of return;
>>>> - at the end: return rc;
>>>
>>> Given the feedback on the Arm side, the first solution is likely to be
>>> preferred.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind either option, with
>> - the former ensured to be okay with all compiler versions we (still)
>> support,
>
> I tested a stripped-down version of the switch on godbolt.org (as far
> back as gcc-4.8.5) and it doesn't complain. It should be tested on a
> real Xen build, though.
I didn't fear any issue when going back to just 4.8. Quoting ./README:
- For x86:
- GCC 4.1.2_20070115 or later
>> - the latter having the initialize rc to 0 part dropped; imo it's
>> better
>> if every case block makes sure to set the intended value explicitly.
>
> This is a lot of churn, I'd rather avoid it.
Rant (sorry): There's already excessive churn for entirely benign issues
that Misra claims need adjusting.
Jan
