On 2025-07-30 12:42, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 2025-07-30 11:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 28.07.2025 07:03, Jiqian Chen wrote:
+static int vpci_ext_capability_hide(
+ const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int cap)
+{
+ const unsigned int offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf,
cap);
+ struct vpci_register *r, *prev_r;
+ struct vpci *vpci = pdev->vpci;
+ uint32_t header, pre_header;
+
+ if ( offset < PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
+ {
+ ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock(&vpci->lock);
+ r = vpci_get_register(vpci, offset, 4);
+ if ( !r )
+ {
+ spin_unlock(&vpci->lock);
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
+ header = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
+ if ( offset == PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
+ {
+ if ( PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header) <= PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
+ r->private = (void *)(uintptr_t)0;
Eclair regards this a Misra rule 11.9 violation. Elsewhere we use
(void *)0,
which I then would conclude is "fine". But I can't say why that is.
Cc-ing
Bugseng for a possible explanation.
Hi Jan,
I only see
0|$ git grep "(void\*)0"
xen/include/xen/types.h:#define NULL ((void*)0)
which is fine for R11.9 of course. As Andrew noted, I don't see the
need for the use of uintptr_t either.
Oh, I missed forms using a space before the pointer. In any case, from
the rule's Amplification: "Note: a null pointer constant of the form
(void *)0 is permitted, whether or not it was expanded from NULL."
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
