Hi!
> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>> "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>> },
>>>> + {
>>>> + "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>> + "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>> + },
>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>> Jan
>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which
>> aren't.
>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized
>> by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I
>> Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
>
> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and
> "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the
risk that if
another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA
compliance,
it will be excluded.
If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.
>
> --
> Nicola Vetrini, BSc
> Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
