On 14.03.2024 23:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 11.03.2024 09:59, Simone Ballarin wrote: >>> Some headers, under specific circumstances (documented in a comment at >>> the beginning of the file), explicitly avoid inclusion guards: the caller >>> is responsible for including them correctly. >>> >>> These files are not supposed to comply with Directive 4.10: >>> "Precautions shall be taken in order to prevent the contents of a header >>> file being included more than once" >>> >>> This patch adds deviation cooments for headers that avoid guards. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Simone Ballarin <simone.balla...@bugseng.com> >>> >>> --- >>> Changes in v3: >>> - fix inconsistent deviation ID >>> - change comment-based deviation text >>> Changes in v2: >>> - use the format introduced with doc/misra/safe.json instead of >>> a generic text-based deviation >>> --- >>> docs/misra/safe.json | 9 +++++++++ >>> xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h | 1 + >>> xen/include/public/errno.h | 1 + >>> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> I understand something wants doing, but having such comments appear in public >> headers feels wrong to me. I'm afraid I have no good alternative suggestion. > > Given that in both cases there is very nice explanation on how to use > the headers as an in-code comment just above, could we embed the > SAF-3-safe marker in the existing comment?
I'm afraid that won't address my remark, and I'm further afraid this would then render the SAF part of the comment ineffectual. > If not, I think we should go with this patch as is (I don't think it is > worth my, your, and Simone's time to look for alternatives). Easy alternative: Simply leave public headers alone. Jan
