On 12.10.2023 17:28, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> The definition of MC_NCLASSES contained a violation of MISRA C:2012
> Rule 10.1, therefore by moving it as an enumeration constant resolves the
> violation and makes it more resilient to possible additions to that enum.
And using an enumerator as array dimension specifier is okay for Misra?
That would be odd when elsewhere named enums are treated specially.
Jan
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
> @@ -64,8 +64,6 @@ struct mctelem_ent {
>
> #define MC_NENT (MC_URGENT_NENT + MC_NONURGENT_NENT)
>
> -#define MC_NCLASSES (MC_NONURGENT + 1)
> -
> #define COOKIE2MCTE(c) ((struct mctelem_ent *)(c))
> #define MCTE2COOKIE(tep) ((mctelem_cookie_t)(tep))
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.h
> b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.h
> index d4eba53ae0e5..21b251847bc0 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.h
> @@ -55,8 +55,9 @@
> typedef struct mctelem_cookie *mctelem_cookie_t;
>
> typedef enum mctelem_class {
> - MC_URGENT,
> - MC_NONURGENT
> + MC_URGENT,
> + MC_NONURGENT,
> + MC_NCLASSES
> } mctelem_class_t;
>
> extern void mctelem_init(unsigned int);
