On 12/07/23 18:02, Luca Fancellu wrote:
On 12 Jul 2023, at 16:54, Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> wrote:
In the file 'xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c' is not clear how
the commented-out code should interact with the previous statement.
To resolve the MISRA violation generated by the nested comment
a #if .. #endif block with an explanatory comment substitutes
the earlier construct.
In the file 'xen/include/xen/atomic.h' the nested comment has been removed,
since the code sample is already explained by the preceding comment.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
---
Following the suggestion of this message
https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/[email protected]/
an explanatory comment has been added.
---
xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c | 13 ++++++++++---
xen/include/xen/atomic.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c b/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c
index c21bf71e88..56c3849414 100644
--- a/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c
+++ b/xen/common/xmalloc_tlsf.c
@@ -139,10 +139,17 @@ static inline void MAPPING_SEARCH(unsigned long *r, int
*fl, int *sl)
*r = *r + t;
*fl = flsl(*r) - 1;
*sl = (*r >> (*fl - MAX_LOG2_SLI)) - MAX_SLI;
- *fl -= FLI_OFFSET;
- /*if ((*fl -= FLI_OFFSET) < 0) // FL will be always >0!
- *fl = *sl = 0;
+ /*
+ * It's unclear what was the purpose of the commented-out code that now
+ * is in the #else branch. The current form is motivated by the
correction
+ * of a violation MISRA:C 2012 Rule 3.1
*/
+#if 1
+ *fl -= FLI_OFFSET;
+#else
+ if ((*fl -= FLI_OFFSET) < 0) // FL will be always >0!
In the message you linked above, you suggested to use /* FL will be always >0!
*/, why has it changed?
Was some comment I missed? The xen codestyle mandates the use of /* */, anyway
I agree that here you
are just moving code...
So maybe the maintainer can tell what is the best thing to do here.
You didn't miss any further comment: my suggestion was related to the
explanatory comment, not the nested comment itself. If a better wording
can be found for the former, no problem. As for the codestyle point: it
does not change anything doing
"// FL will be always >0!" -> "/* FL will be always >0! */
w.r.t. Rule 3.1 (both would have been nested comments).
Regards,
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
