Re: [XEN PATCH 1/5] xen/common: address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 8.2

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 21.11.2023 01:02, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> On 18/11/23 03:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023, Federico Serafini wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/xen/common/stop_machine.c b/xen/common/stop_machine.c
>>>> index 3adbe380de..398cfd507c 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/common/stop_machine.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/stop_machine.c
>>>> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct stopmachine_data {
>>>>         unsigned int fn_cpu;
>>>>       int fn_result;
>>>> -    int (*fn)(void *);
>>>> +    int (*fn)(void *data);
>>>>       void *fn_data;
>>>>   };
>>>
>>> At least one of the possible function used here calls the parameter
>>> "arg", see take_cpu_down. But I don't think it is a MISRA requirement to
>>> also harmonize those?
>>>
>>>
>>>> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void stopmachine_wait_state(void)
>>>>    * mandatory to be called only on an idle vcpu, as otherwise active core
>>>>    * scheduling might hang.
>>>>    */
>>>> -int stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, unsigned int cpu)
>>>> +int stop_machine_run(int (*fn)(void *data), void *data, unsigned int cpu)
>>>>   {
>>>>       unsigned int i, nr_cpus;
>>>>       unsigned int this = smp_processor_id();
>>>> diff --git a/xen/common/tasklet.c b/xen/common/tasklet.c
>>>> index 3ad67b5c24..3649798e6b 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/common/tasklet.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/tasklet.c
>>>> @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ static void migrate_tasklets_from_cpu(unsigned int
>>>> cpu, struct list_head *list)
>>>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklet_lock, flags);
>>>>   }
>>>>   -void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *), void *data)
>>>> +void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *data), void
>>>> *data)
>>>>   {
>>>>       memset(t, 0, sizeof(*t));
>>>>       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&t->list);
>>>> @@ -208,7 +208,8 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void
>>>> *), void *data)
>>>>       t->data = data;
>>>>   }
>>>>   -void softirq_tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t, void (*func)(void *), void
>>>> *data)
>>>> +void softirq_tasklet_init(struct tasklet *t,
>>>> +                          void (*func)(void *data), void *data)
>>>>   {
>>>>       tasklet_init(t, func, data);
>>>>       t->is_softirq = 1;
>>>> diff --git a/xen/common/timer.c b/xen/common/timer.c
>>>> index 0fddfa7487..bf7792dcb3 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/common/timer.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/timer.c
>>>> @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ static bool active_timer(const struct timer *timer)
>>>>     void init_timer(
>>>>       struct timer *timer,
>>>> -    void        (*function)(void *),
>>>> +    void        (*function)(void *data),
>>>>       void         *data,
>>>>       unsigned int  cpu)
>>>>   {
>>>> @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ void kill_timer(struct timer *timer)
>>>>     static void execute_timer(struct timers *ts, struct timer *t)
>>>>   {
>>>> -    void (*fn)(void *) = t->function;
>>>> +    void (*fn)(void *data) = t->function;
>>>>       void *data = t->data;
>>>>         t->status = TIMER_STATUS_inactive;
>>>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
>>>> index 135f33f606..390f7b6082 100644
>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/rangeset.h
>>>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ bool_t __must_check rangeset_overlaps_range(
>>>>       struct rangeset *r, unsigned long s, unsigned long e);
>>>>   int rangeset_report_ranges(
>>>>       struct rangeset *r, unsigned long s, unsigned long e,
>>>> -    int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, void *), void *ctxt);
>>>> +    int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e, void *data), void *ctxt);
>>>
>>> Also here some of the functions use "arg" instead of ctxt
>>>
>>>
>>>>   /*
>>>>    * Note that the consume function can return an error value apart from
>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ int rangeset_report_ranges(
>>>>    */
>>>>   int rangeset_consume_ranges(struct rangeset *r,
>>>>                               int (*cb)(unsigned long s, unsigned long e,
>>>> -                                      void *, unsigned long *c),
>>>> +                                      void *ctxt, unsigned long *c),
>>>>                               void *ctxt);
>>>
>>> Also here some of the functions use "dom" like irq_remove_cb.
>>>
>>>
>>> But I actually like the patch as is, so if that's OK from a MISRA point
>>> of view then I would give my reviewed-by.
>>
>> Yes, this is OK for MISRA.
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>

To cover EFI:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan