On 2024-12-10 13:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.12.2024 11:54, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Rule 2.1 states: "A project shall not contain unreachable code".
The placement of the loop after "out_unmap" can be moved earlier
in order to avoid the unconditional return to be marked as a cause of
unreachability for the loop, as this is a consequence of
"__builtin_unreachable" being configured in ECLAIR as being
deliberately
unreachable, and therefore not reported as causing the code after the
"out_unmap" label to be unreachable.
Replacing one instance of "goto out_unmap" with the loop avoids
considering the unconditional return at the end of the function as a
cause
of unreachability, while preserving the semantics of the function.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
with ...
Thanks
--- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pod.c
@@ -1005,7 +1005,14 @@ p2m_pod_zero_check(struct p2m_domain *p2m,
const gfn_t *gfns, unsigned int count
{
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
domain_crash(d);
- goto out_unmap;
+out_unmap:
... the label indented by one or more blanks, as per ./CODING_STYLE.
Happy to adjust while committing.
Right, I followed the style used in this file assuming that it was in
line with CODING_STYLE, but I now see that this is not the case. No
problem either way.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
