On 30/07/2025 10:50 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.07.2025 07:03, Jiqian Chen wrote:
>> +static int vpci_ext_capability_hide(
>> + const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int cap)
>> +{
>> + const unsigned int offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf, cap);
>> + struct vpci_register *r, *prev_r;
>> + struct vpci *vpci = pdev->vpci;
>> + uint32_t header, pre_header;
>> +
>> + if ( offset < PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
>> + {
>> + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&vpci->lock);
>> + r = vpci_get_register(vpci, offset, 4);
>> + if ( !r )
>> + {
>> + spin_unlock(&vpci->lock);
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> + header = (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)r->private;
>> + if ( offset == PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
>> + {
>> + if ( PCI_EXT_CAP_NEXT(header) <= PCI_CFG_SPACE_SIZE )
>> + r->private = (void *)(uintptr_t)0;
> Eclair regards this a Misra rule 11.9 violation. Elsewhere we use (void *)0,
> which I then would conclude is "fine". But I can't say why that is. Cc-ing
> Bugseng for a possible explanation.
Eclair is complaining that this isn't written r->private = NULL.
Given that private is a pointer, I don't understand why NULL isn't used
either.
~Andrew
