On 03.06.2024 09:13, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2024-06-03 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 01.06.2024 12:16, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> @@ -483,6 +483,12 @@ leads to a violation of the Rule are deviated."
>>> -config=MC3R1.R20.12,macros+={deliberate,
>>> "name(GENERATE_CASE)&&loc(file(deliberate_generate_case))"}
>>> -doc_end
>>>
>>> +-doc_begin="The macro DEFINE is defined and used in excluded files
>>> asm-offsets.c.
>>> +This may still cause violations if entities outside these files are
>>> referred to
>>> +in the expansion."
>>> +-config=MC3R1.R20.12,macros+={deliberate,
>>> "name(DEFINE)&&loc(file(asm_offsets))"}
>>> +-doc_end
>>
>> Can you give an example of such a reference? Nothing _in_ asm-offsets.c
>> should be referenced, I'd think. Only stuff in asm-offsets.h as
>> _generated
>> from_ asm-offsets.c will, of course, be.
>>
>
> Perhaps I could have expressed that more clearly. What I meant is that
> there are some arguments to DEFINE that are not part of asm-offsets.c,
> therefore they end up in the violation report, but are not actually
> relevant, because the macro DEFINE is actually what we want to exclude.
>
> See for instance at the link below VCPU_TRAP_{NMI,MCE}, which are
> defined in asm/domain.h and used as arguments to DEFINE inside
> asm-offsets.c.
>
> https://saas.eclairit.com:3787/fs/var/local/eclair/XEN.ecdf/ECLAIR_normal/staging/X86_64-BUGSENG/676/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service/MC3R1.R20.12.html
I'm afraid I still don't understand: The file being supposed to be
excluded from scanning, why does it even show up in that report?
Jan
