On 31.08.2023 12:08, Simone Ballarin wrote:
> On 29/08/23 08:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 28.08.2023 15:20, Simone Ballarin wrote:
>>> Add inclusion guards to address violations of
>>> MISRA C:2012 Directive 4.10 ("Precautions shall be taken in order
>>> to prevent the contents of a header file being included more than
>>> once").
>>>
>>> Also C files, if included somewhere, need to comply with the guideline.
>>>
>>> Mechanical change.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simone Ballarin <simone.balla...@bugseng.com>
>>> ---
>>> xen/common/compat/grant_table.c | 7 +++++++
>>> xen/common/coverage/gcc_4_7.c | 5 +++++
>>> xen/common/decompress.h | 5 +++++
>>> xen/common/event_channel.h | 5 +++++
>>> xen/common/multicall.c | 5 +++++
>>> 5 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>
>> As already said in reply to another patch, imo .c files shouldn't gain such
>> guards. These are commonly referred to as "header guards" for a reason.
>>
>
> This is the MISRA's definition of "header file" (MISRA C:2012 Revision
> 1, Appendix J):
>
> "A header file is any file that is the subject of a #include
> directive.
> Note: the filename extension is not significant."
That's completely misleading terminology then.
> So, the guards are required if we want to comply with the directive,
> otherwise we can raise a deviation.
>
> The danger of multi-inclusion also exists for .c files, why do you want
> to avoid guards for them?
Counter question: Why only add guards to some of them? (My personal
answer is "Because it's extra clutter.")
Jan
