Re: [XEN PATCH 1/7] xen/shutdown: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 2.1

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-12-12 10:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.12.2023 11:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > Given that 'hwdom_shutdown' is a noreturn function, unreachable
> > breaks can be eliminated to resolve violations of Rule 2.1.
> > On the occasion, the type of its parameter is changed to uint8_t.
> I don't particularly mind that extra change, but it's entirely 
> unrelated
> here. We do such when we touch lines (or maybe adjacent lines) anyway,
> but here you had no need to touch either declaration or the header of
> the definition.
Ok. I can make this a separate patch, since I'm already touching the 
function
> > --- a/xen/common/shutdown.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/shutdown.c
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static void noreturn maybe_reboot(void)
> >      }
> >  }
> >
> > -void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
> > +void hwdom_shutdown(uint8_t reason)
> >  {
> >      switch ( reason )
> >      {
> > @@ -38,39 +38,32 @@ void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
> >          printk("Hardware Dom%u halted: halting machine\n",
> >                 hardware_domain->domain_id);
> >          machine_halt();
> > -        break; /* not reached */
> >
> >      case SHUTDOWN_crash:
> >          debugger_trap_immediate();
> >          printk("Hardware Dom%u crashed: ", 
> > hardware_domain->domain_id);
> >          kexec_crash(CRASHREASON_HWDOM);
> >          maybe_reboot();
> > -        break; /* not reached */
> Given the function's name, I don't view this removal (and the similar 
> one
> further down) as acceptable. The function first needs renaming so that
> from its name one can no longer (wrongly) infer that it may reboot or 
> else
> return.
>
> Jan
Something like "reboot_or_halt" would be okay?

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)