On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 10.02.2024 02:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > Update docs/misra/rules.rst to reflect the MISRA C rules accepted in the > > last couple of months. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > In the notes section I added some info about the deviations, but in any > > case the appropriate info will also be added to deviations.rst, > > safe.json, etc. > > > > I also added Rule 14.4, which is older, but when I first tried to add it > > to rules.rst, Jan had a question I couldn't reply clearly: > > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169828285627163 > > > > I think now with this series, the impact of Rule 14.4 is clearer: > > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=170194257326186 > > This series is about enums only afaics. Yet the rule is much wider, and iirc > we had agreed that for integer and pointer types the normal language > conversion to boolean meaning is fine as well. Not only do you not mention > this case in the entry,
I can add a note about it. > but it also continue to mean that effectively we > limit the rule to a very narrow case. Which continue to leave open the > question of whether the rule is worthwhile to accept in the first place. When someone does a safety certification, there is a difference between deviating a rule as a whole or accepting the rule and only deviating certain aspects of it (simply ignoring the rule is typically not an option in safety certification context.) So here I think it would help downstreams interested in safety if we added the rule, with specific deviations. Do you have any comments on the other parts of this patch? If not, I would be happy to resent the rest unmodified, and update only 14.4 in its own separate patch where we can discuss further.
