On 2026-01-20 12:03, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 11:52 AM CET, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.01.2026 11:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 11:20 AM CET, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.01.2026 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
The only dependency here is patch 2 going in before patch 3.
Everything else
can be freely rearranged.
Is this correct? Didn't you say (confirming what I observed
elsewhere a little
while back) that there's a complaint when a file listed in the
exclusions doesn't
exist anymore (which may have been cppcheck, not Eclair, but still
breaking CI)?
IOW can patch 4 really be separate from patch 3? Or, if its
description was to
be trusted, wouldn't it need to go ahead of what is now patch 3?
Doh, you're right, they are out of order. Patch 4 now just removes
the exclusion
so it's fine to do it separately.
I.e. the description there saying "it's clean" is accurate, and it was
excluded
for (effectively) no reason?
All I can say is that I looked at the report after running Eclair and
found no
trace of earlycpio.c in the violations. It's not clean, but I don't
think it
is as of now.
As to why it was excluded in the first place, your guess is as good as
mine.
Maybe all decompressors were excluded regardless of them being clean or
not
(e.g: zstd is also excluded).
Well, the list was devised by AMD before even plumbing the MISRA
checking infrastructure, so it may well be that some files in there can
be removed because they have no violations on clean guidelines (that is
not to say that they contain no violations at all: it may be that they
have some additional ones in non-clean guidelines).
Cheers,
Alejandro
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
