Re: [XEN PATCH v3 07/12] x86/hvm: address violations of MISRA C Rule 16.3

[Federico Serafini <federico.serafini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01/07/24 10:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.06.2024 11:28, Federico Serafini wrote:
> > @@ -2798,11 +2800,12 @@ void hvm_emulate_one_vm_event(enum emul_kind kind, 
> > unsigned int trapnr,
> >           hvio->mmio_insn_bytes = sizeof(hvio->mmio_insn);
> >           memcpy(hvio->mmio_insn, curr->arch.vm_event->emul.insn.data,
> >                  hvio->mmio_insn_bytes);
> > +        fallthrough;
> >       }
> > -    /* Fall-through */
> >       default:
> Can you clarify for me please whether this arrangement actually helps?
> I'm pretty sure it'll result in a Coverity complaint, as my understanding
> is that for them the marker (comment or pseudo-keyword) has to immediately
> precede the subsequent label. IOW even if you confirmed that Eclair is
> smarter in this regard, it may still need converting to
>
>          hvio->mmio_insn_bytes = sizeof(hvio->mmio_insn);
>          memcpy(hvio->mmio_insn, curr->arch.vm_event->emul.insn.data,
>                 hvio->mmio_insn_bytes);
>      }
>          fallthrough;
>      default:
Yes, this is ok for ECLAIR.

--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.

Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)