Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/9] x86/cpuid: address violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2

2024-04-09 Thread Nicola Vetrini
On 2024-04-08 09:39, Jan Beulich wrote: On 05.04.2024 11:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote: Refactor the switch so that a violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of a switch statement). Note that the

Re: [XEN PATCH v2 2/9] x86/cpuid: address violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2

2024-04-08 Thread Jan Beulich
On 05.04.2024 11:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Refactor the switch so that a violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved > (A switch label shall only be used when the most closely-enclosing > compound statement is the body of a switch statement). > Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo >

[XEN PATCH v2 2/9] x86/cpuid: address violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2

2024-04-05 Thread Nicola Vetrini
Refactor the switch so that a violation of MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (A switch label shall only be used when the most closely-enclosing compound statement is the body of a switch statement). Note that the switch clause ending with the pseudo keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to