On 02.04.2024 17:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 4:46 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.04.2024 17:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> MISRA Rule 13.6 doesn't like having an expression in a sizeof() which
>>> potentially has side effects.
>>>
>>> Address several violations by pulling the expression out into a local
>>> variable.
>>>
>>> No functional change.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> with one caveat:
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
>>> @@ -1150,8 +1150,9 @@ static void cf_check irq_guest_eoi_timer_fn(void
>>> *data)
>>> {
>>> struct domain *d = action->guest[i];
>>> unsigned int pirq = domain_irq_to_pirq(d, irq);
>>> + struct pirq *pirq_info = pirq_info(d, pirq);
>> Misra won't like the var's name matching the macro's. Can we go with just
>> "info"?
>
> Ah - missed that.
>
> I can name it to just info, but I considered "struct pirq *info" to be a
> little odd.
I agree, but what do you do with another "pirq" already there.
Or wait, what about
struct pirq *pirq = pirq_info(d, domain_irq_to_pirq(d, irq));
?
Jan
