On 20/01/2026 3:25 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2026-01-20 16:14, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 20/01/2026 2:20 pm, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 2026-01-20 13:09, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:51 PM CET, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:41 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-01-20 12:27, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue Jan 20, 2026 at 12:21 PM CET, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-20 10:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>>>>>>>> It's clean. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> docs/misra/exclude-list.json | 4 ---- >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi. Do you have a link to a pipeline? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the cover letter. I only run it on allcode. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I see. I can spot these additional violations from earlycpio.c. It >>>>>> does >>>>>> not result in a failure, but only because x86_64-allcode has also >>>>>> other >>>>>> non-clean guidelines and is thus allowed to fail. Ideally in some >>>>>> copious free time I'd send a patch to create a subset of clean >>>>>> guidelines for the *-allcode analysis that is failing, so that the >>>>>> "allow_fail: true" can be removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The web interface doesn't allow to search?! Sigh... thanks for the >>>>> pointer. >>>> >>>> It's your usual mess of miscasting, enum-as-int, etc. >>>> >>>> Would you rather keep the exclusion and deal with it later or let it >>>> pile up? >>>> I just don't have the time to go into it myself. >>>> >>> >>> Well, including more stuff in the scan doesn't hurt and it's only a >>> handful of reports that could be fixed, but the maintainers will have >>> the final say. This file is not really inside my area as a reviewer, >>> but if it helps: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> >>> >> >> I'm not seeing anything in that report that's on the clean and blocking >> list. But to double check, I've started >> >> https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/pipelines/2274001675 >> >> >> which is this patch in isolation to see if anything shows up in the >> *-amd runs. >> > > https://eclair-analysis-logs.xenproject.org/fs/space/verdesse0/XEN.ecdf/xen-project/people/agvallejo/xen/ECLAIR_normal/ucode-disable_v4/X86_64/12771570090/PROJECT.ecd;/by_main_file/xen/lib/earlycpio.c.html#{"select":true,"selection":{"hiddenAreaKinds":[],"hiddenSubareaKinds":[],"show":true,"selector":{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":1,"children":[{"enabled":true,"negated":false,"kind":0,"domain":"clean","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"added"}]},{"enabled":true,"negated":true,"kind":0,"domain":"kind","inputs":[{"enabled":true,"text":"caution"}]}]}}} > > > Looks ugly, but it's a direct view into the clean:added selection: > R10.2, R20.7, R7.1 in short. >
And to follow up: https://gitlab.com/xen-project/hardware/xen-staging/-/jobs/12783298989 So, earlycpio.c is not clean to the clean-subset for the AMD target build. In terms of ordering the series, patches 1 and 5 want to go in first, to get ucode disabled in the AMD target build. This patch wants merging into 3 for bisectibility reasons, but the justification wanted is "so it's included in the *-allcode" analysis. ~Andrew
