In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
zcopy_cookie = true;
+ /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;
--
2.7.4
On (02/19/18 12:10), Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
Acked-by: Sowmini Varadhan <[email protected]>
Hi,
2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
> index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
> --- a/net/rds/send.c
> +++ b/net/rds/send.c
> @@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
>
> case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
> zcopy_cookie = true;
> + /* fall through */
> +
> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
> cmsg_groups |= 2;
>
So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)
For patch itself,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
From: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800
> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions. Coverity
might as well, I don't know.
Hi Santosh,
On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
>> index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
>> --- a/net/rds/send.c
>> +++ b/net/rds/send.c
>> @@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int
>> num_sgs)
>> case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
>> zcopy_cookie = true;
>> + /* fall through */
>> +
>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
>> cmsg_groups |= 2;
>>
> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
>
No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or
continue statement is missing.
Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the
following line to your Makefile:
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)
You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.
> Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
> about it if some one makes a spell error in this
> comment what happens ;-)
>
In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.
> For patch itself,
> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
--
Gustavo
On 02/20/2018 12:01 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800
>
>> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
>
> From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions. Coverity
> might as well, I don't know.
>
Yeah, the one that reports those warnings is GCC.
Coverity only knows about missing break, return and continue.
--
Gustavo
On 2/20/2018 10:01 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800
>
>> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
>
> From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions. Coverity
> might as well, I don't know.
>
Good to know about 'gcc' adding such option. Thanks !!
On 2/20/2018 10:05 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi Santosh,
>
> On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
>>> index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
>>> --- a/net/rds/send.c
>>> +++ b/net/rds/send.c
>>> @@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int
>>> num_sgs)
>>> case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
>>> zcopy_cookie = true;
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> +
>>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
>>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
>>> cmsg_groups |= 2;
>>>
>> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
>>
>
> No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or
> continue statement is missing.
>
> Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the
> following line to your Makefile:
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)
>
> You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.
>
That make sense.
>> Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
>> about it if some one makes a spell error in this
>> comment what happens ;-)
>>
>
> In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in
> switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.
>
Got it. Thanks !!
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:10:20 -0600
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Applied.