Re: [XEN PATCH v2] xen/sched: mechanical renaming to address MISRA C:2012 Rule 5.3

[Nicola Vetrini]

On 25/07/23 16:52, Jan Beulich wrote:

On 25.07.2023 11:08, Nicola Vetrini wrote:

@@ -99,14 +99,15 @@ static void sched_set_affinity(
      struct sched_unit *unit, const cpumask_t *hard, const cpumask_t *soft);

static struct sched_resource *cf_check

-sched_idle_res_pick(const struct scheduler *ops, const struct sched_unit *unit)
+sched_idle_res_pick(
+    const struct scheduler *ops, const struct sched_unit *unit)
  {
      return unit->res;
  }

static void *cf_check

-sched_idle_alloc_udata(const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *unit,
-                       void *dd)
+sched_idle_alloc_udata(
+    const struct scheduler *ops, struct sched_unit *unit, void *dd)
  {
      /* Any non-NULL pointer is fine here. */
      return ZERO_BLOCK_PTR;

These look like stray changes, presumably resulting from you not fully
undoing earlier changes.

You're right, they were the byproduct of an earlier edit to this patch.

--- a/xen/common/sched/credit2.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched/credit2.c
@@ -3809,7 +3809,8 @@ csched2_dump(const struct scheduler *ops)
      struct list_head *iter_sdom;
      struct csched2_private *prv = csched2_priv(ops);
      unsigned long flags;
-    unsigned int j, loop;
+    unsigned int loop;
+    int j;

This looks like a stray change too, just that it's unclear where it is
coming from.

I thought I added a note to the commit, but I probably did some mistake.
That's why I changed it:

Note: local variable 'j' in xen/common/sched/credit2.c:3888' should
probably be unsigned as well, but I saw while editing the patch
that it's used as a parameter to 'dump_pcpu', which takes an int.
Changing the types of parameters used in these calls is
probably a good target for another patch, as it's not relevant
to Rule 5.3

@@ -3884,7 +3885,7 @@ csched2_dump(const struct scheduler *ops)
      list_for_each_entry ( rqd, &prv->rql, rql )
      {
          struct list_head *iter, *runq = &rqd->runq;
-        int loop = 0;
+        loop = 0;

/* We need the lock to scan the runqueue. */

          spin_lock(&rqd->lock);

With the switch from declaration to statement, a blank line wants
inserting (to separate the remaining declaration from the
statements).

Ok

--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)