On 2024-06-24 11:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.06.2024 11:50, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
From: Alessandro Zucchelli <alessandro.zucche...@bugseng.com>
This addresses violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3 which states as
following: An identifier declared in an inner scope shall not hide an
identifier declared in an outer scope. In this case the shadowing is
between
local variables "mctctl" and the file-scope static struct variable
with the
same name.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Alessandro Zucchelli <alessandro.zucche...@bugseng.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
---
RFC because I'm not 100% sure the semantics of the code is preserved.
I think so, and it passes gitlab pipelines [1], but there may be some
missing
information.
Details as to your concerns would help. I see no issue, not even a
concern.
That's reassuring. My main concern was that somehow the global (trough
perhaps some macro expansion) would be updated instead of the local (or
viceversa).
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/mcheck/mctelem.c
@@ -168,14 +168,14 @@ static void mctelem_xchg_head(struct mctelem_ent
**headp,
void mctelem_defer(mctelem_cookie_t cookie, bool lmce)
{
struct mctelem_ent *tep = COOKIE2MCTE(cookie);
- struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl = &this_cpu(mctctl);
+ struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl_cpu = &this_cpu(mctctl);
When possible (i.e. without loss of meaning) I'd generally prefer names
to
be shortened. Wouldn't just "ctl" work here?
I can try. I do not expect shadowing with "ctl", but it may happen. I'll
try and let you know.
- ASSERT(mctctl->pending == NULL || mctctl->lmce_pending == NULL);
+ ASSERT(mctctl_cpu->pending == NULL || mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending ==
NULL);
- if (mctctl->pending)
- mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+ if (mctctl_cpu->pending)
+ mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
else if (lmce)
- mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->lmce_pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+ mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending, &tep->mcte_next,
tep);
else {
/*
* LMCE is supported on Skylake-server and later CPUs, on
@@ -186,10 +186,10 @@ void mctelem_defer(mctelem_cookie_t cookie, bool
lmce)
* moment. As a result, the following two exchanges together
* can be treated as atomic.
*/
In the middle of this comment the variable is also mentioned, and hence
also wants adjusting (twice).
Ok, will update.
- if (mctctl->lmce_pending)
- mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->lmce_pending,
- &mctctl->pending, NULL);
- mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
+ if (mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending)
+ mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending,
+ &mctctl_cpu->pending, NULL);
+ mctelem_xchg_head(&mctctl_cpu->pending, &tep->mcte_next, tep);
}
}
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ void mctelem_process_deferred(unsigned int cpu,
{
struct mctelem_ent *tep;
struct mctelem_ent *head, *prev;
- struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl = &per_cpu(mctctl, cpu);
+ struct mc_telem_cpu_ctl *mctctl_cpu = &per_cpu(mctctl, cpu);
int ret;
/*
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ void mctelem_process_deferred(unsigned int cpu,
* Any MC# occurring after the following atomic exchange will be
* handled by another round of MCE softirq.
*/
- mctelem_xchg_head(lmce ? &mctctl->lmce_pending : &mctctl->pending,
+ mctelem_xchg_head(lmce ? &mctctl_cpu->lmce_pending :
&mctctl_cpu->pending,
&this_cpu(mctctl.processing), NULL);
By shortening the variable name here you'd also avoid going past line
length limits.
Ok.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
