On 2024-04-08 09:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.04.2024 11:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
@@ -119,12 +119,12 @@ int hvm_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
(mode == 8 ? regs->rdi : regs->ebx) ==
On 05.04.2024 11:14, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hypercall.c
> @@ -119,12 +119,12 @@ int hvm_hypercall(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
> (mode == 8 ? regs->rdi : regs->ebx) ==
> HVMOP_guest_request_vm_event )
> break;
>
Refactor the switch so that a violation of
MISRA C Rule 16.2 is resolved (a switch label should be immediately
enclosed in the compound statement of the switch).
The switch clause ending with the pseudo
keyword "fallthrough" is an allowed exception to Rule 16.3.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
