On 07.07.2025 23:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2025, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 04.07.2025 22:39, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >>> Address a violation of MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.5: >>> "Identifiers shall be distinct from macro names". >>> >>> Reports for service MC3A2.R5.5: >>> xen/include/xen/irq.h: non-compliant function `pirq_cleanup_check(struct >>> pirq*, struct domain*)' >>> xen/include/xen/irq.h: non-compliant macro `pirq_cleanup_check' >>> >>> The primary issue stems from the macro and function >>> having identical names, which is confusing and >>> non-compliant with common coding standards. >>> >>> Change the function name by adding two underscores at the end. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Prokopchuk <dmytro_prokopch...@epam.com> >> >> I'm not going to NAK this, but I dislike the transformation done. The >> aliasing >> in this case was intentional, to avoid any caller appearing that would bypass >> the macro. Yes, the double underscores will also stand out (as much as the >> parenthesization that would have been needed to override the protection), but >> still ... > > Maybe you can suggest a different name?
As per my earlier reply, using the same name was intentional here. Hence it's not a matter of what (different) name to pick, but the mere fact that a different name is being suggested to be used. Yet as said - I'm not going to NAK this, but I also don't like the change. Jan > Looking at the diff, this patch also seems OKish. > > It is possible but difficult to deviate specific instances like this: if > a SAF in-code comment works, then great, otherwise we have to resort to > a regex which makes thing harder to maintain. > > Unless a SAF in-code comment works, I think this patch is the best way > to go.
