Re: [XEN PATCH 10/11] x86/hvm: address violations of Rule 20.7

From: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: sstabellini@kernel.org, michal.orzel@amd.com,
	xenia.ragiadakou@amd.com, ayan.kumar.halder@amd.com,
	consulting@bugseng.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
	roger.pau@citrix.com, bertrand.marquis@arm.com, julien@xen.org,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [XEN PATCH 10/11] x86/hvm: address violations of Rule 20.7
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:31:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <59c7cf8e513f07680703b2c90449a50c@bugseng.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c7475d7-b4ac-492f-8abd-2ab3b60c2a29@suse.com>

On 2024-03-26 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.03.2024 17:01, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
>> MISRA C Rule 20.7 states: "Expressions resulting from the expansion
>> of macro parameters shall be enclosed in parentheses". Therefore, some
>> macro definitions should gain additional parentheses to ensure that 
>> all
>> current and future users will be safe with respect to expansions that
>> can possibly alter the semantics of the passed-in macro parameter.
>> 
>> No functional change.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@bugseng.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> albeit preferably with ...
> 
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/save.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/hvm/save.h
>> @@ -128,9 +128,9 @@ static int __init cf_check 
>> __hvm_register_##_x##_save_and_restore(void)   \
>>  {                                                                     
>>     \
>>      hvm_register_savevm(HVM_SAVE_CODE(_x),                            
>>     \
>>                          #_x,                                          
>>     \
>> -                        &_save,                                       
>>     \
>> +                        &(_save),                                     
>>     \
>>                          check,                                        
>>     \
>> -                        &_load,                                       
>>     \
>> +                        &(_load),                                     
>>     \
> 
> ... the &s dropped rather than parentheses added, as we already have it
> for (the recently added) "check".
> 
> Jan

Sounds good

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