On 12/09/23 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.09.2023 11:36, Simone Ballarin wrote:
Some headers, under specific circumstances (documented in a comment at
the beginning of the file), explicitly avoid inclusion guards: the caller
is responsible for including them correctly.
These files are not supposed to comply with Directive 4.10:
"Precautions shall be taken in order to prevent the contents of a header
file being included more than once"
This patch adds deviation cooments for headers that avoid guards.
Signed-off-by: Simone Ballarin <simone.balla...@bugseng.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- use the format introduced with doc/misra/safe.json instead of
a generic text-based deviation
---
docs/misra/safe.json | 8 ++++++++
xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h | 1 +
xen/include/public/errno.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/misra/safe.json b/docs/misra/safe.json
index 39c5c056c7..db438c9770 100644
--- a/docs/misra/safe.json
+++ b/docs/misra/safe.json
@@ -20,6 +20,14 @@
},
{
"id": "SAF-2-safe",
+ "analyser": {
+ "eclair": "MC3R1.D4.10"
+ },
+ "name": "Dir 4.10: headers that leave it up to the caller to include
them correctly",
+ "text": "Headers that deliberatively avoid inclusion guards explicitly
leaving responsibility to the caller are allowed."
+ },
With this ...
+ {
+ "id": "SAF-3-safe",
"analyser": {},
"name": "Sentinel",
"text": "Next ID to be used"
diff --git a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
index 6b6ce2745c..eac1ae4b2a 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
* their XEN_CPUFEATURE() being appropriate in the included context.
*/
+/* SAF-1-safe header that leaves it up to the caller to include them correctly */
#ifndef XEN_CPUFEATURE
/*
diff --git a/xen/include/public/errno.h b/xen/include/public/errno.h
index 5a78a7607c..8b60ac74ae 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/errno.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/errno.h
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
* will unilaterally #undef XEN_ERRNO().
*/
+/* SAF-1-safe header that leaves it up to the caller to include them correctly */
#ifndef XEN_ERRNO
/*
... you mean SAF-2-safe in both code comments. I did point out the problem
with the sequential numbering (and resulting rebasing mistakes) when the
scheme was introduced.
I also think the comments are too verbose. I don't mind them having an
indication what specific issue they are about, but it shouldn't be more
than a couple of words. Here maybe "omitted inclusion guard".
Jan
Yes, you are right: I've made a mistake when rebasing against
origin/staging.
I will wait more comments on the series, then I will submit v3
with the correct IDs.
--
Simone Ballarin, M.Sc.
Field Application Engineer, BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
