It's clean.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
---
docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
index 388397dd3b..273e24db4a 100644
--- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
+++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
@@ -121,10 +121,6 @@
"rel_path": "common/bunzip2.c",
"comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
},
- {
- "rel_path": "common/earlycpio.c",
- "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
- },
{
"rel_path": "common/gzip/*",
"comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
--
2.43.0On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> It's clean.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
> ---
> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline?
> diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> index 388397dd3b..273e24db4a 100644
> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@
> "rel_path": "common/bunzip2.c",
> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> },
> - {
> - "rel_path": "common/earlycpio.c",
> - "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> - },
> {
> "rel_path": "common/gzip/*",
> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> It's clean.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
>> ---
>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline?
In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode.
Cheers,
Alejandro
>
>> diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> index 388397dd3b..273e24db4a 100644
>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@
>> "rel_path": "common/bunzip2.c",
>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>> },
>> - {
>> - "rel_path": "common/earlycpio.c",
>> - "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>> - },
>> {
>> "rel_path": "common/gzip/*",
>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> It's clean.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline?
>
> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode.
>
I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It does
not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also other
non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some
copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean
guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the
"allow_fail: true" can be removed.
https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html
> Cheers,
> Alejandro
>
>>
>>> diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> index 388397dd3b..273e24db4a 100644
>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@
>>> "rel_path": "common/bunzip2.c",
>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>> },
>>> - {
>>> - "rel_path": "common/earlycpio.c",
>>> - "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>> - },
>>> {
>>> "rel_path": "common/gzip/*",
>>> "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> It's clean. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >> >> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >> > > I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It does > not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also other > non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some > copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean > guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the > "allow_fail: true" can be removed. > > https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the pointer. I'll have a look. Cheers, Alejandro
On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> It's clean. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >>> >>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >>> >> >> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It does >> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also other >> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some >> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean >> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the >> "allow_fail: true" can be removed. >> >> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html > > The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the pointer. It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc. Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it pile up? I just don't have the time to go into it myself. Cheers, Alejandro
On 2026-01-20 13:09, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>>> It's clean. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >>>> >>>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >>>> >>> >>> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It >>> does >>> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also >>> other >>> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some >>> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean >>> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the >>> "allow_fail: true" can be removed. >>> >>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html >> >> The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the >> pointer. > > It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc. > > Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it > pile up? > I just don't have the time to go into it myself. > Well, including more stuff in the scan doesn't hurt and it's only a handful of reports that could be fixed, but the maintainers will have the final say. This file is not really inside my area as a reviewer, but if it helps: Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> -- Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc. Software Engineer BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
On 20/01/2026 2:20 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2026-01-20 13:09, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>>>> It's clean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >>>>> >>>>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It >>>> does >>>> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also >>>> other >>>> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some >>>> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean >>>> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the >>>> "allow_fail: true" can be removed. >>>> >>>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html >>>> >>> >>> The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the >>> pointer. >> >> It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc. >> >> Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it >> pile up? >> I just don't have the time to go into it myself. >> > > Well, including more stuff in the scan doesn't hurt and it's only a > handful of reports that could be fixed, but the maintainers will have > the final say. This file is not really inside my area as a reviewer, > but if it helps: > > Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> > I'm not seeing anything in that report that's on the clean and blocking list. But to double check, I've started https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/2274001675 which is this patch in isolation to see if anything shows up in the *-amd runs. ~Andrew
On 2026-01-20 16:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/01/2026 2:20 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2026-01-20 13:09, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's clean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo
>>>>>>>> <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It
>>>>> does
>>>>> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also
>>>>> other
>>>>> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some
>>>>> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean
>>>>> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the
>>>>> "allow_fail: true" can be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the
>>>> pointer.
>>>
>>> It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc.
>>>
>>> Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it
>>> pile up?
>>> I just don't have the time to go into it myself.
>>>
>>
>> Well, including more stuff in the scan doesn't hurt and it's only a
>> handful of reports that could be fixed, but the maintainers will have
>> the final say. This file is not really inside my area as a reviewer,
>> but if it helps:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
>>
>
> I'm not seeing anything in that report that's on the clean and blocking
> list. But to double check, I've started
>
> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/2274001675
>
> which is this patch in isolation to see if anything shows up in the
> *-amd runs.
>
https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html#{"select":true,"selection":{"hiddenAreaKinds":[],"hiddenSubareaKinds":[],"show":true,"selector":{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":1,"children":[{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":0,"domain":"clean","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"added"}]},{"enabled":true,"negated":true,"kind":0,"domain":"kind","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"caution"}]}]}}}
Looks ugly, but it's a direct view into the clean:added selection:
R10.2, R20.7, R7.1 in short.
--
Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc.
Software Engineer
BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
On 20/01/2026 3:25 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2026-01-20 16:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 20/01/2026 2:20 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-20 13:09, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's clean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo
>>>>>>>>> <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ----
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some
>>>>>> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean
>>>>>> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the
>>>>>> "allow_fail: true" can be removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the
>>>>> pointer.
>>>>
>>>> It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it
>>>> pile up?
>>>> I just don't have the time to go into it myself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, including more stuff in the scan doesn't hurt and it's only a
>>> handful of reports that could be fixed, but the maintainers will have
>>> the final say. This file is not really inside my area as a reviewer,
>>> but if it helps:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not seeing anything in that report that's on the clean and blocking
>> list. But to double check, I've started
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/2274001675
>>
>>
>> which is this patch in isolation to see if anything shows up in the
>> *-amd runs.
>>
>
> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html#{"select":true,"selection":{"hiddenAreaKinds":[],"hiddenSubareaKinds":[],"show":true,"selector":{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":1,"children":[{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":0,"domain":"clean","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"added"}]},{"enabled":true,"negated":true,"kind":0,"domain":"kind","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"caution"}]}]}}}
>
>
> Looks ugly, but it's a direct view into the clean:added selection:
> R10.2, R20.7, R7.1 in short.
>
And to follow up:
https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/jobs/12783298989
So, earlycpio.c is not clean to the clean-subset for the AMD target build.
In terms of ordering the series, patches 1 and 5 want to go in first, to
get ucode disabled in the AMD target build.
This patch wants merging into 3 for bisectibility reasons, but the
justification wanted is "so it's included in the *-allcode" analysis.
~Andrew
On 2026-01-20 12:51, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> It's clean. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@amd.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >>> >>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >>> >> >> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It >> does >> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also >> other >> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some >> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean >> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the >> "allow_fail: true" can be removed. >> >> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html > > The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the > pointer. > > I'll have a look. > It does allow searching, just not in the typical way. There is a technical reason for that that I won't go into. > Cheers, > Alejandro -- Nicola Vetrini, B.Sc. Software Engineer BUGSENG (https://bugseng.com) LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-vetrini-a42471253
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.