On 02/04/2024 5:06 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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));
>
> ?
That should work. I'll switch to this locally, and wait for the
feedback on whether the patch works for 13.6.
~Andrew
