On Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Simone Ballarin wrote: > From: Maria Celeste Cesario <[email protected]> > > The xen sources contain violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 11.8 whose > headline states: > "A conversion shall not remove any const, volatile or _Atomic qualification > from the type pointed to by a pointer". > > Add missing const qualifiers missing in casting. > There's no reason to drop the const qualifier in ACPI_COMPARE_NAME since > the macro arguments are not modified in its body. > > Signed-off-by: Maria Celeste Cesario <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Simone Ballarin <[email protected]> > --- > xen/include/acpi/acmacros.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/xen/include/acpi/acmacros.h b/xen/include/acpi/acmacros.h > index 86c503c20f..d7c74c5769 100644 > --- a/xen/include/acpi/acmacros.h > +++ b/xen/include/acpi/acmacros.h > @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ > #define ACPI_PTR_TO_PHYSADDR(i) ACPI_TO_INTEGER(i) > > #ifndef ACPI_MISALIGNMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED > -#define ACPI_COMPARE_NAME(a,b) (*ACPI_CAST_PTR (u32,(a)) == > *ACPI_CAST_PTR (u32,(b))) > +#define ACPI_COMPARE_NAME(a,b) (*ACPI_CAST_PTR (const u32,(a)) == > *ACPI_CAST_PTR (const u32,(b)))
I am a bit confused but this one. The implementation of ACPI_CAST_PTR is: #define ACPI_CAST_PTR(t, p) ((t *) (acpi_uintptr_t) (p)) The first cast to acpi_uintptr_t would already drop the const anyway? > #else > #define ACPI_COMPARE_NAME(a,b) (!ACPI_STRNCMP (ACPI_CAST_PTR > (char,(a)), ACPI_CAST_PTR (char,(b)), ACPI_NAME_SIZE)) > #endif Would it make sense to also add the const here too if nothing else for consistency?
