On 2023-12-06 10:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.2023 17:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static struct ns16550 {
With the variable even being static, ...
bool msi;
const struct ns16550_config_param
On 05.12.2023 17:31, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/char/ns16550.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static struct ns16550 {
With the variable even being static, ...
> bool msi;
> const struct ns16550_config_param *param; /* Points into .init.*! */
>
On 05/12/2023 4:31 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> The initializer of 'ns16550_com' violates MISRA C Rule 9.3
> because it explicitly initializes only the first element of the array,
> but the semantics is the same if the explicit initialization is
> omitted.
>
> No functional change.
>
>
The initializer of 'ns16550_com' violates MISRA C Rule 9.3
because it explicitly initializes only the first element of the array,
but the semantics is the same if the explicit initialization is
omitted.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
---
In the context of the rule ("Arrays
