On 2024-03-11 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.03.2024 09:10, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Rule 20.4 states: "A macro shall not be defined with the same name
as a keyword".
Defining this macro with the same name as the inline keyword
allows for additionally checking that out-of-lined static inline
functions end up in the correct section while minimizing churn and
has a positive impact on the overall safety. See [1] for additional
context on the motivation of this deviation.
No functional change.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/adaa6d55-266d-4df8-8967-9340080d1...@citrix.com/
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
---
docs/misra/safe.json | 8 ++++++++
xen/include/xen/compiler.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/misra/safe.json b/docs/misra/safe.json
index 952324f85cf9..a2bbacddf06a 100644
--- a/docs/misra/safe.json
+++ b/docs/misra/safe.json
@@ -28,6 +28,14 @@
},
{
"id": "SAF-3-safe",
+ "analyser": {
+ "eclair": "MC3R1.R20.4"
+ },
+ "name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the augmentation of the
inline keyword in some build configurations",
+ "text": "The definition of this macro named inline allows
further checking in some build configurations that certain symbols end
up in the right sections."
+ },
With this wording the ID isn't going to be re-usable anywhere else.
Even
if the exact same reasoning would apply.
What about
"name": "MC3R1.R20.4: allow the definition of a macro with the same name
as a keyword in some special cases"
and
"text": "The definition of a macro with the same name as a keyword can
be useful in certain configurations to improve the guarantees that can
be provided by Xen. See docs/misra/deviations.rst for a precise
rationale for all such cases.
and then..
+ {
+ "id": "SAF-4-safe",
"analyser": {},
"name": "Sentinel",
"text": "Next ID to be used"
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
index 16d554f2a593..e3d9f9fb8e4b 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/compiler.h
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@
* inline functions not expanded inline get placed in .init.text.
*/
#include <xen/init.h>
+/* SAF-3-safe MISRA C Rule 20.4: define the inline macro to perform
checks */
#define inline inline __init
#endif
I don't think the definition is "to perform checks"; it's rather to
make
sure checking elsewhere wouldn't (seemingly) randomly fail. 'Override
"inline" for section contents checks to pass when the compiler chooses
not to inline a particular function' perhaps? Albeit that's getting
long-ish, I fear.
put this message in deviations.rst
Jan
is this proposal more appealing?
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
