On 12.07.2025 00:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >> Hi All. >> >> In this 2nd version I made changes according to the >> https://patchew.org/Xen/d92cf08a64d8197a1d1a45f901e59183105d3da5.1752183472.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ >> >> There are 0 violations on the ARM64 as you can see in the report: >> https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/people/dimaprkp4k/xen/ECLAIR_normal/fix_10.1_rule/ARM64/10650097988/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service.html#service&kind >> >> Jan mentioned: >> "As to the kind of change here - didn't we deviate applying unary minus >> to unsigned types?" >> >> Here is that deviation: >> https://patchew.org/Xen/7c7b7a09e9d5ac1cc6f93fecacd8065fb6f25324.1745427770.git.victorm.l...@amd.com/ >> As you can see from report >> https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/people/dimaprkp4k/xen/ECLAIR_normal/deviate_10.1_rule/ARM64/10648749555/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service.html#service&kind >> there are still 2 violations. >> And they can be easily fixed. >> >> So, Jan and Stefano, >> which approach should we select? > > I think we should go with the global deviation. > > Jan, if you look at the code changes on this series, many of them are > undesirable. And the series is only addressing the ARM violations: it is > only going to get worse for x86. > > I think we should commit: > https://patchew.org/Xen/7c7b7a09e9d5ac1cc6f93fecacd8065fb6f25324.1745427770.git.victorm.l...@amd.com/ > > Jan, are you OK with it?
Well, I did comment on it, and I don't think I saw a re-submission addressing those comments. But the way I commented I think it has become clear that I don't object to the deviation, just that some adjustments are needed to the wording. Jan
