MISRA C Rule 16.2 states:
"A switch label shall only be used when the most closely-enclosing
compound statement is the body of a switch statement".
The PROGRESS_VCPU local helper specifies a case that is directly
inside the compound statement of a for loop, hence violating the rule.
To avoid this, the construct is deviated with a text-based deviation.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
Acked-by: Jan Beulich
---
docs/misra/safe.json | 8
xen/common/domain.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/misra/safe.json b/docs/misra/safe.json
index fe2bc185097d..9b13bcf71706 100644
--- a/docs/misra/safe.json
+++ b/docs/misra/safe.json
@@ -44,6 +44,14 @@
},
{
"id": "SAF-5-safe",
+"analyser": {
+"eclair": "MC3R1.R16.2"
+},
+"name": "MC3R1.R16.2: using a case label when the most
closely-enclosing compound statement is not a switch statement",
+"text": "A switch label enclosed by some compound statement that
is not the body of a switch is permitted within local helper macros that are
unlikely to be misused or misunderstood."
+},
+{
+"id": "SAF-6-safe",
"analyser": {},
"name": "Sentinel",
"text": "Next ID to be used"
diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c
index 282c3ab62308..1e555d658c97 100644
--- a/xen/common/domain.c
+++ b/xen/common/domain.c
@@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain *d)
for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
{
+/* SAF-5-safe MISRA C Rule 16.2: switch label enclosed by for
loop*/
PROGRESS_VCPU(teardown);
rc = vcpu_teardown(v);
--
2.34.1
