On 17.04.2024 21:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Refactor the first clauses so that a violation of > MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (a switch label should be immediately > enclosed in the compound statement of the switch). > Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo > keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to Rule 16.3. > > Convert fallthrough comments in other clauses to the pseudo-keyword > while at it. > > No functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
I did ack a patch with this title, yes, but the content of that patch was different. Besides all the references to the fallthrough pseudo- keyword being unrelated to the change below, there's also nothing ... > --- a/xen/common/domain.c > +++ b/xen/common/domain.c > @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d) > > for_each_vcpu ( d, v ) > { > + /* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by for > loop*/ > PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown); > > rc = vcpu_teardown(v); ... domctl-ish in here. What is going on? Jan