Re: [PATCH] misra: add deviations of MISRA C Rule 5.5

[Dmytro Prokopchuk1 <dmytro_prokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx>]

On 7/21/25 13:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.07.2025 12:27, Dmytro Prokopchuk1 wrote:
>> On 7/16/25 21:08, Dmytro Prokopchuk wrote:
>>> MISRA C Rule 5.5 states that: "Identifiers shall
>>> be distinct from macro names".
>>>
>>> Update ECLAIR configuration to deviate:
>>> - clashes in 'xen/include/xen/bitops.h';
>>> - clashes in 'xen/include/xen/irq.h';
>>> - clashes in 'xen/common/grant_table.c'.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Prokopchuk <dmytro_prokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> This patch makes MISRA Rule 5.5 "clean" for ARM only.
>>>
>>> Was agreed to narrow deviation:
>>> https://patchew.org/Xen/cover.1752096263.git.dmytro._5Fprokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx/e47d08e4465f913f03348830954e800f420c652d.1752096263.git.dmytro._5Fprokopchuk1@xxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> CI:
>>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/var/local/eclair/xen-project.ecdf/xen-project/people/dimaprkp4k/xen/ECLAIR_normal/rule_5.5_deviation_final/ARM64/10706457595/PROJECT.ecd;/by_service.html#service&kind
>>> ---
>>>    automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl | 7 +++++++
>>>    docs/misra/deviations.rst                        | 7 +++++++
>>>    2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl 
>>> b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> index 8504e850c1..3895148460 100644
>>> --- a/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,13 @@ it defines would (in the common case) be already 
>>> defined. Peer reviewed by the c
>>>    -config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, 
>>> "any_area(decl(kind(function))||any_loc(macro(name(memcpy||memset||memmove))))&&any_area(any_loc(file(^xen/common/libelf/libelf-private\\.h$)))"}
>>>    -doc_end
>>>
>>> +-doc_begin="Clashes between function names and macros are deliberate and 
>>> needed to have a function-like macro that acts as a wrapper for the 
>>> function to be called.
>>> +Before calling the function, the macro adds additional checks or adjusts 
>>> the number of parameters depending on the configuration."
>>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, 
>>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/include/xen/bitops\\.h$)) && 
>>> macro(name(__test_and_set_bit||__test_and_clear_bit||__test_and_change_bit||test_bit)))"}
>>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, 
>>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/common/grant_table\\.c$))&&macro(name(update_gnttab_par||parse_gnttab_limit)))"}
>>> +-config=MC3A2.R5.5,reports+={deliberate, 
>>> "any_area(all_loc(file(^xen/include/xen/irq\\.h$))&&macro(name(pirq_cleanup_check)))"}
>>> +-doc_end
>>> +
>>>    -doc_begin="The type \"ret_t\" is deliberately defined multiple times,
>>>    depending on the guest."
>>>    
>>> -config=MC3A2.R5.6,reports+={deliberate,"any_area(any_loc(text(^.*ret_t.*$)))"}
>>> diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
>>> index 620e97f0bd..84bc933cbf 100644
>>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst
>>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst
>>> @@ -142,6 +142,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules:
>>>           memmove.
>>>         - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
>>>
>>> +   * - R5.5
>>> +     - Clashes between function names and macros are deliberate and needed
>>> +       to have a function-like macro that acts as a wrapper for the 
>>> function to be
>>> +       called. Before calling the function, the macro adds additional 
>>> checks or
>>> +       adjusts the number of parameters depending on the configuration.
>>> +     - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR.
>>> +
>>>       * - R5.6
>>>         - The type ret_t is deliberately defined multiple times depending 
>>> on the
>>>           type of guest to service.
>>
>> Could you review this patch?
>
> I don't understand. I'm not feeling capable of (fully) reviewing changes to
> automation/eclair_analysis/ECLAIR/deviations.ecl. Nor am I the only maintainer
> of that file. And the text being added to docs/misra/deviations.rst is too
> unspecific for my taste, yet I thought I'd better not repeat that same concern
> over and over again. If others feel like ack-ing in this shape, so be it.
>
> Jan

Hello all!

Since there have been no new comments so far, I would like to propose a
straightforward solution: rename the macros (that violate Rule 5.5)
using capital letters (using best practices for naming macros in C).
I can prepare such a patch.

The main question is: "Is it possible to upstream such changes?"
Or is this idea not worthwhile?

Dmytro.