On 14.03.24 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
In xen spinlock code there are several violations of MISRA rule 21.1
(identifiers starting with "__" or "_[A-Z]").
Fix them by using trailing underscores instead.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
I can live with the changes as they are, but before giving an ack, I'd
still like to ask if the moved underscores are really useful / necessary
in all cases. E.g.
--- a/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/spinlock.h
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ union lock_debug {
bool unseen:1;
};
};
-#define _LOCK_DEBUG { .val = LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL }
+#define LOCK_DEBUG_ { .val = LOCK_DEBUG_INITVAL }
... for an internal helper macro it may indeed be better to have a
trailing one here, but ...
@@ -95,27 +95,27 @@ struct lock_profile_qhead {
int32_t idx; /* index for printout */
};
-#define _LOCK_PROFILE(lockname) { .name = #lockname, .lock = &(lockname), }
-#define _LOCK_PROFILE_PTR(name) \
- static struct lock_profile * const __lock_profile_##name \
+#define LOCK_PROFILE_(lockname) { .name = #lockname, .lock = &(lockname), }
+#define LOCK_PROFILE_PTR_(name) \
+ static struct lock_profile * const lock_profile__##name \
... I'm not entirely convinced of the need for the double infix ones
here ...
This reduces the chance of name clashes with other lock profiling variables or
functions (e.g. lock_profile_lock). In case you think this can be neglected, I'm
fine with dropping the extra underscores.
Juergen
