> On 31 Oct 2023, at 15:10, Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> wrote: > > On 2023-10-31 15:13, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> On 31 Oct 2023, at 13:27, Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> wrote: >>> Hi Stefano, >>> On 30/10/2023 22:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> Hi Nicola, >>>>> On 27/10/2023 16:11, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> diff --git a/docs/misra/deviations.rst b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>>>>> index 8511a189253b..8aaaa1473fb4 100644 >>>>>> --- a/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>>>>> +++ b/docs/misra/deviations.rst >>>>>> @@ -90,6 +90,13 @@ Deviations related to MISRA C:2012 Rules: >>>>>> - __emulate_2op and __emulate_2op_nobyte >>>>>> - read_debugreg and write_debugreg >>>>>> + * - R7.1 >>>>>> + - It is safe to use certain octal constants the way they are >>>>>> defined >>>>>> + in specifications, manuals, and algorithm descriptions. Such >>>>>> places >>>>>> + are marked safe with a /\* octal-ok \*/ in-code comment, or with >>>>>> a >>>>>> SAF >>>>>> + comment (see safe.json). >>>>> Reading this, it is unclear to me why we have two ways to deviate the rule >>>>> r7.1. And more importantely, how would the developper decide which one to >>>>> use? >>>> I agree with you on this and we were discussing this topic just this >>>> morning in the FUSA community call. I think we need a way to do this >>>> with the SAF framework: >>>> if (some code with violation) /* SAF-xx-safe */ >>>> This doesn't work today unfortunately. It can only be done this way: >>>> /* SAF-xx-safe */ >>>> if (some code with violation) >>>> Which is not always desirable. octal-ok is just an ad-hoc solution for >>>> one specific violation but we need a generic way to do this. Luca is >>>> investigating possible ways to support the previous format in SAF. >>> Why can't we use octal-ok everywhere for now? My point here is to make >>> simple for the developper to know what to use. >>>> I think we should take this patch for now and harmonize it once SAF is >>>> improved. >>> The description of the deviation needs some improvement. To give an >>> example, with the current wording, one could they can use octal-ok >>> everywhere. But above, you are implying that SAF-xx-safe should be >>> preferred. >>> I would still strongly prefer if we use octal-ok everywhere because this is >>> simple to remember. But if the other are happy to have both SAF-XX and >>> octal-ok, then the description needs to be completely unambiguous and the >>> patch should contain some explanation why we have two different ways to >>> deviate. >> Would it be ok to have both, for example: /* SAF-XX-safe octal-ok */ >> So that the suppression engine do what it should (currently it doesn’t >> suppress the same line, but we could do something about it) and the developer >> has a way to understand what is the violation here without going to the >> justification database. > > I guess. It could overflow the 80-char limit in xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.h, > though.
Yeah, but we could rule out something in code_style to allow only this kind of trailing comments to exceed the 80 chars > > -- > Nicola Vetrini, BSc > Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
