On 26.04.2025 02:00, victorm.l...@amd.com wrote:
> From: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com>
>
> MISRA C Rule 14.3 states that "Controlling expressions shall not be
> invariant".
>
> Add a SAF comment to deviate the rule for build configurations without
> CONFIG_LLC_COLORING enabled.
I was surprised by this supposedly being the only violation. And indeed it
wasn't very hard to find more. For example, we have a number of
"while ( num_online_cpus() > 1 && ... )", which become compile-time
constant (false) when NR_CPUS=1.
> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2038,6 +2038,7 @@ static struct page_info *alloc_color_heap_page(unsigned
> int memflags,
>
> spin_lock(&heap_lock);
>
> + /* SAF-14-safe MISRA C R14.3 condition always false without LLC_COLORING
> */
> for ( i = 0; i < domain_num_llc_colors(d); i++ )
> {
> unsigned long free = free_colored_pages[domain_llc_color(d, i)];
Hmm, this way the deviation applies even when LLC_COLORING=y.
As to the comment wording - looks like we're pretty inconsistent with that
right now. I, for one, don't think the Misra rule needs (re)stating there;
the SAF index points at all the data that's needed if one cares about the
specifics of the deviation.
Jan
