On 08/03/2024 09.08, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 7/3/24 20:43, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 28/02/2024 17.43, Zhao Liu wrote:
Hi Philippe,
+/*
+ * Real ICH9 contains a single SMI output line and doesn't broadcast CPUs.
+ * Virtualized ICH9 allows broadcasting upon negatiation with guest, see
+ * commit 5ce45c7a2b.
+ */
+enum {
+ ICH9_VIRT_SMI_BROADCAST,
+ ICH9_VIRT_SMI_CURRENT,
+#define ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT 2
+};
+
Just quick look here. Shouldn't ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT be defined outside of
enum {}?
Or even better, do it without a #define:
enum {
ICH9_VIRT_SMI_BROADCAST,
ICH9_VIRT_SMI_CURRENT,
ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT
This form isn't recommended as it confuses static analyzers,
considering ICH9_VIRT_SMI_COUNT as part of the enum.
Never heard of that before. We're using it all over the place, e.g.:
typedef enum {
THROTTLE_BPS_TOTAL,
THROTTLE_BPS_READ,
THROTTLE_BPS_WRITE,
THROTTLE_OPS_TOTAL,
THROTTLE_OPS_READ,
THROTTLE_OPS_WRITE,
BUCKETS_COUNT,
} BucketType;
... and even in our generated QAPI code, e.g.:
typedef enum QCryptoHashAlgorithm {
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_MD5,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_SHA1,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_SHA224,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_SHA256,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_SHA384,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_SHA512,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG_RIPEMD160,
QCRYPTO_HASH_ALG__MAX,
} QCryptoHashAlgorithm;
Where did you see here a problem with static analyzers?
Thomas
