On 24.07.2025 12:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/07/2025 11:08 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 24.07.2025 11:40, Mykola Kvach wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
>>> @@ -1326,16 +1326,10 @@ int domain_shutdown(struct domain *d, u8 reason)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -void domain_resume(struct domain *d)
>>> +void domain_resume_nopause(struct domain *d)
>> This function not being static on (at least) non-Arm is, I think, in
>> conflict with some Misra rule.
>>
>>> {
>>> struct vcpu *v;
>>>
>>> - /*
>>> - * Some code paths assume that shutdown status does not get reset under
>>> - * their feet (e.g., some assertions make this assumption).
>>> - */
>>> - domain_pause(d);
>>> -
>>> spin_lock(&d->shutdown_lock);
>>>
>>> d->is_shutting_down = d->is_shut_down = 0;
>>> @@ -1349,10 +1343,32 @@ void domain_resume(struct domain *d)
>>> }
>>>
>>> spin_unlock(&d->shutdown_lock);
>>> +}
>>>
>>> +void domain_resume(struct domain *d)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * Some code paths assume that shutdown status does not get reset under
>>> + * their feet (e.g., some assertions make this assumption).
>>> + */
>>> + domain_pause(d);
>>> + domain_resume_nopause(d);
>>> domain_unpause(d);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +bool vcpu_is_suspended(struct vcpu *v)
>> pointer-to-const please (and apparently also in
>> do_psci_1_0_system_suspend()).
>
> No. This is not a predicate. It takes a mutable pointer.
Predicate or not doesn't matter. (And it really is a predicate, as the "is" in
the name says, at least to me.)
> (And yes I am irritated that you continue to provide wrong feedback to
> contributors. I'm in the middle of stripping another bogus const of
> yours from a different area that's hiding a MISRA violation.)
Well, all I know is that we disagree in where we think const is applicable. But
that disagreement was never resolved, and you can't expect me to silently jump
on your train of thinking.
> Also why is this email not on the list?
That I don't know. For sure it wasn't intentional for the list to be dropped.
Jan
