On 13.02.2025 02:34, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 13/02/2025 1:25 am, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am looking through the few remaining MISRA violations that we have >> left. One of them is R11.2: >> >> https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/hardware/xen/ECLAIR_normal/staging/X86_64/9118578464/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service/MC3A2.R11.2.html#{%22select%22:true,%22selection%22:{%22hiddenAreaKinds%22:[],%22hiddenSubareaKinds%22:[],%22show%22:false,%22selector%22:{%22enabled%22:true,%22negated%22:true,%22kind%22:0,%22domain%22:%22kind%22,%22inputs%22:[{%22enabled%22:true,%22text%22:%22violation%22}]}}} >> >> Specifically, mctelem_cookie_t is a pointer to incomplete type and >> therefore COOKIE2MCTE triggers a "conversion between a pointer to an >> incomplete type and any other type". >> >> mctelem_cookie_t is defined as: >> >> typedef struct mctelem_cookie *mctelem_cookie_t; >> >> I am looking through the code and I genuinely cannot find the definition >> of struct mctelem_cookie. >> >> If mctelem_cookie_t is only used as a pointer, wouldn't it make more >> sense to do: >> >> typedef struct mctelem_ent *mctelem_cookie_t; >> >> ? >> >> What am I missing? > > Nothing. Or perhaps the twisted thinking of the original author. > > It is genuinely a pointer type (== known size) which you can't deference > (because there is no definition), and can only operate on by casting to > an integer. Except the code also requires it to be a uint64_t which is > why there's some fun disabling of relevant hypercalls for compat guests.
That "fun disabling" is for the COMPAT=n case afaics, not for compat guests. Or else I screwed up in d23d792478db. Jan
