1. Patchew
  2. Xen
  3. View series

[XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json

Nicola Vetrini posted 1 patch 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://gitlab.com/xen-project/patchew/xen tags/patchew/664ddc412905546d44d3e311a743ba5217a6243b.1702976486.git.nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com
docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
[XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Nicola Vetrini 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
The file was inherited from Linux and ACPI CA, therefore it's
not subject to MISRA compliance at the moment.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
---
 docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
index 48f671c548b6..36cca71fae2d 100644
--- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
+++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
@@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
         },
+        {
+          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
+          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
+        },
         {
             "rel_path": "include/xen/acpi.h",
             "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
-- 
2.34.1
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Jan Beulich 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>            "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>            "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>          },
> +        {
> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> +        },

Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?

Jan
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Nicola Vetrini 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>            "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>            "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>          },
>> +        {
>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>> +        },
> 
> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
> 
> Jan

+Cc Luca Fancellu

Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which 
aren't.
I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly 
recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I 
think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.

-- 
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Nicola Vetrini 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>            "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>            "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>          },
>>> +        {
>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>> +        },
>> 
>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>> 
>> Jan
> 
> +Cc Luca Fancellu
> 
> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which 
> aren't.
> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly 
> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck 
> I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.

It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and 
"include/acpi/platform/ac*".

-- 
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Luca Fancellu 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
Hi!

> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>>           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>>           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>         },
>>>> +        {
>>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>> +        },
>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>> Jan
>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't.
>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
> 
> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*".

Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if
another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance,
it will be excluded.

If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.


> 
> -- 
> Nicola Vetrini, BSc
> Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Stefano Stabellini 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> >>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> >>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
> >>>>           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
> >>>>           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> >>>>         },
> >>>> +        {
> >>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
> >>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
> >>>> +        },
> >>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
> >>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
> >>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
> >>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
> >>> Jan
> >> +Cc Luca Fancellu
> >> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't.
> >> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
> > 
> > It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
> 
> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if
> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance,
> it will be excluded.
> 
> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.

I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Jan Beulich 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>>>>           "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>>>>           "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>         },
>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>> +        },
>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>>>> Jan
>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't.
>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
>>>
>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
>>
>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if
>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance,
>> it will be excluded.
>>
>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.
> 
> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.

It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the
trailing .h.

Jan
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Luca Fancellu 4 months, 2 weeks ago 

> On 20 Dec 2023, at 08:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>>>>>          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>>>>>          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>>        },
>>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>>>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>> +        },
>>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it better be
>>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and which aren't.
>>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
>>>> 
>>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
>>> 
>>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could have the risk that if
>>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject to MISRA compliance,
>>> it will be excluded.
>>> 
>>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then it’s fine.
>> 
>> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.
> 
> It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the
> trailing .h.

Yes, with the extension is better, the same as we already do here:

[...]
{
    "rel_path": "common/un*.c”,
    "comment": "unlz4.c implementation by Yann Collet, the others un* are from Linux, ignore for now"
},
[...]
Re: [XEN PATCH] xen: add acmacros.h to exclude-list.json
Posted by Nicola Vetrini 4 months, 2 weeks ago 
On 2023-12-20 09:50, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2023, at 08:41, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 20.12.2023 01:17, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>> On 19 Dec 2023, at 11:05, Nicola Vetrini 
>>>>> <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:51, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-12-19 11:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19.12.2023 10:02, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>>>>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
>>>>>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,10 @@
>>>>>>>>          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acglobal.h",
>>>>>>>>          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>>>        },
>>>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>>>> +          "rel_path": "include/acpi/acmacros.h",
>>>>>>>> +          "comment": "Imported from Linux, ignore for now"
>>>>>>>> +        },
>>>>>>> Together with what's already there (in context), wouldn't it 
>>>>>>> better be
>>>>>>> the entire directory then which is excluded, or at least all
>>>>>>> include/acpi/ac*.h collectively (and perhaps also
>>>>>>> include/acpi/platform/ac*.h)?
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> +Cc Luca Fancellu
>>>>>> Sure. I wasn't certain which files are imported from ACPI CA and 
>>>>>> which aren't.
>>>>>> I'm also not sure whether "include/acpi/ac*.h" would be properly 
>>>>>> recognized by other tooling that uses exclude-list.json (only 
>>>>>> cppcheck I think). I Cc-ed Luca Fancellu on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It occurred to me that it's surely ok to use "include/acpi/ac*" and 
>>>>> "include/acpi/platform/ac*".
>>>> 
>>>> Yes I think it’s fine, it just come to my mind now that this could 
>>>> have the risk that if
>>>> another file is added with ‘ac' prefix, even if it could be subject 
>>>> to MISRA compliance,
>>>> it will be excluded.
>>>> 
>>>> If that risk is negligible for the maintainer of that part, then 
>>>> it’s fine.
>>> 
>>> I think it is OK either way, I'll let Jan pick his preference.
>> 
>> It hasn't become clear to me what the benefit would be of omitting the
>> trailing .h.
> 
> Yes, with the extension is better, the same as we already do here:
> 
> [...]
> {
>     "rel_path": "common/un*.c”,
>     "comment": "unlz4.c implementation by Yann Collet, the others un* 
> are from Linux, ignore for now"
> },
> [...]

Ok, I'll send a v2

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

Patchew 2.1-devel-0870f84

© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.