On 01.09.2023 18:34, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> As stated in 'docs/misra/rules.rst' the functions that are used only by
> asm modules do not need to conform to MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.4.
> The deviations are carried out with a SAF comment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
> ---
> Where the identifier for a function definition is on the next line w.r.t. the
> return type, they have been put on the same line (e.g. efi_start) to avoid
> stylistically questionable constructs, such as
>
> int
> /* SAF-1-safe */
> func(void) {
> ...
> }
And
/* SAF-1-safe */
int
func(void) {
is not an option?
Further in the cover letter you say "Deviating variables needs more care, and
is therefore postponed to another patch", yet then here you annotate a couple
of variables as well. Could you clarify what the criteria are for "needs more
care"?
Jan
