[RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-24 Thread Nicola Vetrini
Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violations of Rule 9.3; this is resolved by using designated initializers, which is permitted by the Rule. Mechanical changes. Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini --- xen/arch/x86/ioport_emulate.c | 32 1 file

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-24 Thread Jan Beulich
On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violations > of Rule 9.3; this is resolved by using designated initializers, > which is permitted by the Rule. > > Mechanical changes. > > Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini While not overly bad, I

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-24 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violations > > of Rule 9.3; this is resolved by using designated initializers, > > which is permitted by the Rule. > > > > Mechanical changes. > > > >

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-25 Thread Jan Beulich
On 24.10.2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violations >>> of Rule 9.3; this is resolved by using designated initializers, >>> which is permitted

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-26 Thread Nicola Vetrini
On 25/10/2023 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violations of Rule 9.3; this is resolved by using designated initi

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-26 Thread Jan Beulich
On 26.10.2023 14:32, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 25/10/2023 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > Partially explicitly initalized .matches arrays result in violatio

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-10-27 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.10.2023 14:32, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > On 25/10/2023 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 24.10.2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > Partially expl

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-11-06 Thread Nicola Vetrini
On 2023-10-27 23:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: On 26.10.2023 14:32, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 25/10/2023 09:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.10.2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: On 24.10.2023 16:31, Nico

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-11-10 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > > > There's also this functionally equivalent alternative, with or without > > > > the zeros, which > > > > doesn't incur in the risk of mistakenly attempting to initialize the > > > > same element twice, > > > > while also giving an explicit cue to the

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-11-12 Thread Jan Beulich
On 11.11.2023 02:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > There's also this functionally equivalent alternative, with or without > the zeros, which > doesn't incur in the risk of mistakenly attempting to initialize the > same element twice, > w

Re: [RFC 1/4] x86/ioemul: address MISRA C:2012 Rule 9.3

2023-11-15 Thread Stefano Stabellini
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 11.11.2023 02:23, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > There's also this functionally equivalent alternative, with or without > > the zeros, which > > doesn't incur in the risk of mistakenly attempting t