2018-02-14 17:31:46

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

Subject: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0

drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
+ /* fall through */

case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:
if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {
--
2.7.4

2018-02-14 21:48:13

by Corey Minyard

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.

Thanks, queued for next release.

-corey

> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0
>
> drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
> index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
> switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
> case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
> kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
> + /* fall through */
>
> case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:
> if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {

2018-02-14 22:05:37

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

On 02/14/2018 03:46 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Thanks, queued for next release.
>

Thanks, Corey.
--
Gustavo

2018-02-16 18:51:16

by Haiyue Wang

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

On 2018-02-15 05:46, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Thanks, queued for next release.
>
> -corey
>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0
>>
>>   drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
>> index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
>> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc
>> *kcs_bmc)
>>       switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
>>       case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
>>           kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
>> +        /* fall through */
Thanks, Gustavo. I see many modules have '/* fall through */', but I
thought it was a just C comment, I didn't
add it for making code clean. Learned it, thank you! :-)
>>         case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:
>>           if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {
>
>