On 7/21/25 13:34, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 21.07.2025 12:27, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote: >> On 7/16/25 21:08, Dmytro Prokopchuk wrote: >>> MISRA C Rule 5.5 states that: "Identifiers shall >>> be distinct from macro names". >>> >>> Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate: >>> - clashes in 'xen/include/xen/bitops.h'; >>> - clashes in 'xen/include/xen/irq.h'; >>> - clashes in 'xen/common/grant_table.c'. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Prokopchuk <dmytro_prokopch...@epam.com> >>> --- >>> This patch makes MISRA Rule 5.5 "clean" for ARM only. >>> >>> Was agreed to narrow deviation: >>> https://patchew.org/Xen/cover.1752096263.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/e47d08e4465f913f03348830954e800f420c652d.1752096263.git.dmytro._5fprokopch...@epam.com/ >>> >>> CI: >>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/people/dimaprkp4k/xen/ECLAIR_normal/rule_5.5_deviation_final/ARM64/10706457595/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service.html#service&kind >>> --- >>> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 7 +++++++ >>> docs/misra/deviations.rst | 7 +++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >>> b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >>> index 8504e850c1..3895148460 100644 >>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl >>> @@ -117,6 +117,13 @@ it defines would (in the common case) be already >>> defined. Peer reviewed by the c >>> -config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, >>> "any_area(decl(kind(function))||any_loc(macro(name(memcpy||memset||memmove))))&&any_area(any_loc(file(^xen/common/libelf/libelf-private\\.h$)))"} >>> -doc_end >>> >>> +-doc_begin="Clashes between function names and macros are deliberate and >>> needed to have a function-like macro that acts as a wrapper for the >>> function to be called. >>> +Before calling the function, the macro adds additional checks or adjusts >>> the number of parameters depending on the configuration." >>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, >>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/include/xen/bitops\\.h$)) && >>> macro(name(__test_and_set_bit||__test_and_clear_bit||__test_and_change_bit||test_bit)))"} >>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, >>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/common/grant_table\\.c$))&¯o(name(update_gnttab_par||parse_gnttab_limit)))"} >>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, >>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/include/xen/irq\\.h$))&¯o(name(pirq_cleanup_check)))"} >>> +-doc_end >>> + >>> -doc_begin="The type \"ret_t\" is deliberately defined multiple times, >>> depending on the guest." >>> >>> -config=MC3A2.R5.6,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(any_loc(text(^.*ret_t.*$)))"} >>> diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> index 620e97f0bd..84bc933cbf 100644 >>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>> @@ -142,6 +142,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >>> memmove. >>> - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >>> >>> + * - R5.5 >>> + - Clashes between function names and macros are deliberate and needed >>> + to have a function-like macro that acts as a wrapper for the >>> function to be >>> + called. Before calling the function, the macro adds additional >>> checks or >>> + adjusts the number of parameters depending on the configuration. >>> + - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >>> + >>> * - R5.6 >>> - The type ret_t is deliberately defined multiple times depending >>> on the >>> type of guest to service. >> >> Could you review this patch? > > I don't understand. I'm not feeling capable of (fully) reviewing changes to > automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl. Nor am I the only maintainer > of that file. And the text being added to docs/misra/deviations.rst is too > unspecific for my taste, yet I thought I'd better not repeat that same concern > over and over again. If others feel like ack-ing in this shape, so be it. > > Jan
Hello all! Since there have been no new comments so far, I would like to propose a straightforward solution: rename the macros (that violate Rule 5.5) using capital letters (using best practices for naming macros in C). I can prepare such a patch. The main question is: "Is it possible to upstream such changes?" Or is this idea not worthwhile? Dmytro.
