> On 7 Nov 2022, at 19:06, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2022 12:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 07.11.2022 12:53, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>> On 7 Nov 2022, at 11:49, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07.11.2022 11:47, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/kernel.h
>>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/kernel.h
>>>>> @@ -65,24 +65,28 @@
>>>>> 1; \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* SAF-0-safe R8.6 linker script defined symbols */
>>>>> extern char _start[], _end[], start[];
>>>>> #define is_kernel(p) ({ \
>>>>> char *__p = (char *)(unsigned long)(p); \
>>>>> (__p >= _start) && (__p < _end); \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* SAF-0-safe R8.6 linker script defined symbols */
>>>>> extern char _stext[], _etext[];
>>>>> #define is_kernel_text(p) ({ \
>>>>> char *__p = (char *)(unsigned long)(p); \
>>>>> (__p >= _stext) && (__p < _etext); \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* SAF-0-safe R8.6 linker script defined symbols */
>>>>> extern const char _srodata[], _erodata[];
>>>>> #define is_kernel_rodata(p) ({ \
>>>>> const char *__p = (const char *)(unsigned long)(p); \
>>>>> (__p >= _srodata) && (__p < _erodata); \
>>>>> })
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* SAF-0-safe R8.6 linker script defined symbols */
>>>>> extern char _sinittext[], _einittext[];
>>>>> #define is_kernel_inittext(p) ({ \
>>>>> char *__p = (char *)(unsigned long)(p); \
>>>>
>>>> Why the "R8.6" everywhere here? Didn't we agree that the in-code
>>>> comments should be tool-agnostic?
>>>
>>> The R8.6 is not tool specific, it is to give the quick hint that we are
>>> deviating
>>> from MISRA Rule 8.6.
>> Well, yes, "tool" was wrong for me to write. Imo references to a specific
>> spec should equally be avoided in in-code comments, as other specs may
>> turn up.
>
> +1. The comment duplication is not great and sometimes even a short
> explanation it may not fit in 80 characters (AFAICT the justification should
> be a one line comment).
>
Ok we can remove the R8.6 from the comments, is the remaining part ok?
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
