[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/41] scsi: aacraid: aachba: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

2018-11-29 02:53:21

by Martin K. Petersen

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/41] scsi: libfc: fc_rport: Mark expected switch fall-through

2018-11-29 02:53:28

by Martin K. Petersen

[permalink] [raw]

2018-12-19 16:11:35

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi,

Friendly ping:

Who can ack or review this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that I replaced "!! fall through !!" and "!!! fall through !!!"
> comments with "fall through" annotations, which is what GCC is
> expecting to find.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744900 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744901 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c | 19 +++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> index de50349a39ce..1e400f2aaece 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> @@ -427,17 +427,13 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_plogi(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport, enum rport_event event)
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>
> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
> if (rport->plogi_retries < BFA_FCS_RPORT_MAX_RETRIES) {
> rport->plogi_retries++;
> @@ -868,9 +864,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_adisc_online(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
> * At least go offline when a PLOGI is received.
> */
> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
> - /*
> - * !!! fall through !!!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
> @@ -1056,6 +1050,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_fc4_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
> @@ -1144,9 +1139,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_offline(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_plogiacc(rport, NULL);
> break;
> }
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
> if (!bfa_fcs_lport_is_online(rport->port)) {
> @@ -1303,6 +1296,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
> @@ -1346,6 +1340,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_logo_sending(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>

2018-12-19 16:13:25

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

2018-12-20 02:03:17

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_nvram: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi,

Friendly ping:

Who can ack or review this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c
> index 5662fbb3ff60..0d37b4f07b5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ static int sym_read_Tekram_nvram (struct sym_device *np, Tekram_nvram *nvram)
> data, len);
> if (!x)
> break;
> + /* fall through */
> default:
> x = sym_read_T93C46_nvram(np, nvram);
> break;
>

2018-12-20 02:03:17

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 38/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_hipd: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi,

Friendly ping:

Who can ack or review this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114996 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c
> index 0a2a54517b15..054fb0599263 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c
> @@ -3072,6 +3072,7 @@ static void sym_sir_bad_scsi_status(struct sym_hcb *np, int num, struct sym_ccb
> sym_print_addr(cp->cmd, "%s\n",
> s_status == S_BUSY ? "BUSY" : "QUEUE FULL\n");
> }
> + /* fall through */
> default: /* S_INT, S_INT_COND_MET, S_CONFLICT */
> sym_complete_error (np, cp);
> break;
> @@ -4632,6 +4633,7 @@ static void sym_int_sir(struct sym_hcb *np)
> * Negotiation failed.
> * Target does not want answer message.
> */
> + /* fall through */
> case SIR_NEGO_PROTO:
> sym_nego_default(np, tp, cp);
> goto out;
>

2018-12-20 03:17:13

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_nvram: Mark expected switch fall-through

2019-01-10 21:14:33

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 35/41] scsi: ppa: mark expected switch fall-through

2019-01-10 21:15:17

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nvme: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi,

Friendly ping (second one):

Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c
> index ba831def9301..942fe58c433d 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c
> @@ -1115,6 +1115,7 @@ lpfc_nvme_io_cmd_wqe_cmpl(struct lpfc_hba *phba, struct lpfc_iocbq *pwqeIn,
> lpfc_ncmd, nCmd,
> lpfc_ncmd->cur_iocbq.sli4_xritag,
> bf_get(lpfc_wcqe_c_xb, wcqe));
> + /* fall through */
> default:
> out_err:
> lpfc_printf_vlog(vport, KERN_INFO, LOG_NVME_IOERR,
>

2019-01-10 21:16:16

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

2019-01-10 21:17:06

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

[permalink] [raw]

2019-01-11 00:23:05

by Grove, Bradley

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/41] scsi: esas2r: esas2r_init: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Acked-by: Bradley Grove <[email protected]>

On 1/10/2019 3:08 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Friendly ping (second one):
>
> Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Friendly ping:
>>
>> Who can ack or review this patch, please?
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Gustavo
>>
>> On 11/27/18 10:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c
>>> b/drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c
>>> index 46b2c83ba21f..950cd92df2ff 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c
>>> @@ -1241,6 +1241,7 @@ static bool esas2r_format_init_msg(struct
>>> esas2r_adapter *a,
>>>               a->init_msg = ESAS2R_INIT_MSG_GET_INIT;
>>>               break;
>>>           }
>>> +        /* fall through */
>>>       case ESAS2R_INIT_MSG_GET_INIT:
>>>           if (msg == ESAS2R_INIT_MSG_GET_INIT) {
>>> @@ -1254,7 +1255,7 @@ static bool esas2r_format_init_msg(struct
>>> esas2r_adapter *a,
>>>                   esas2r_hdebug("FAILED");
>>>               }
>>>           }
>>> -    /* fall through */
>>> +        /* fall through */
>>>       default:
>>>           rq->req_stat = RS_SUCCESS;
>>>

This electronic transmission and any attachments hereto are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information belonging to ATTO Technology, Inc. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you have received this transmission in error, please notify ATTO immediately by return e-mail and delete and destroy this communication.

2019-01-11 07:51:17

by Sudarsana Reddy Kalluru

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: [PATCH 12/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_ioc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

-----Original Message-----
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11 January 2019 01:41
To: Anil Gurumurthy <[email protected]>; Sudarsana Kalluru <[email protected]>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <[email protected]>; Martin K. Petersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_ioc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

External Email

Hi,

Friendly ping (second one):

Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Friendly ping:
>
> Who can ack or review this patch, please?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, I replaced "!!! fall through !!!"
>> comment with "fall through" annotations, which is what GCC is
>> expecting to find.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 146155 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c | 9 +++------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c
>> index 16d3aeb0e572..32b24e51cce6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c
>> @@ -978,9 +978,7 @@ bfa_iocpf_sm_enabling(struct bfa_iocpf_s *iocpf, enum iocpf_event event)
>> case IOCPF_E_INITFAIL:
>> bfa_iocpf_timer_stop(ioc);
>> - /*
>> - * !!! fall through !!!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case IOCPF_E_TIMEOUT:
>> writel(1, ioc->ioc_regs.ioc_sem_reg); @@ -1056,9 +1054,7 @@
>> bfa_iocpf_sm_disabling(struct bfa_iocpf_s *iocpf, enum iocpf_event event)
>> case IOCPF_E_FAIL:
>> bfa_iocpf_timer_stop(ioc);
>> - /*
>> - * !!! fall through !!!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case IOCPF_E_TIMEOUT:
>> bfa_ioc_set_cur_ioc_fwstate(ioc, BFI_IOC_FAIL); @@ -6007,6
>> +6003,7 @@ bfa_dconf_sm_final_sync(struct bfa_dconf_mod_s *dconf,
>> case BFA_DCONF_SM_IOCDISABLE:
>> case BFA_DCONF_SM_FLASH_COMP:
>> bfa_timer_stop(&dconf->timer);
>> + /* fall through */
>> case BFA_DCONF_SM_TIMEOUT:
>> bfa_sm_set_state(dconf, bfa_dconf_sm_uninit);
>> bfa_fsm_send_event(&dconf->bfa->iocfc, IOCFC_E_DCONF_DONE);
>>

Acked-by: Sudarsana Kalluru <[email protected]>

2019-01-11 07:51:38

by Sudarsana Reddy Kalluru

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

-----Original Message-----
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11 January 2019 01:42
To: Anil Gurumurthy <[email protected]>; Sudarsana Kalluru <[email protected]>
Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <[email protected]>; Martin K. Petersen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

External Email

Hi,

Friendly ping (second one):

Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Friendly ping:
>
> Who can ack or review this patch, please?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that I replaced "!! fall through !!" and "!!! fall through !!!"
>> comments with "fall through" annotations, which is what GCC is
>> expecting to find.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744900 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744901 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c | 19 +++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
>> b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
>> index de50349a39ce..1e400f2aaece 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
>> @@ -427,17 +427,13 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_plogi(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport, enum rport_event event)
>> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
>> - /*
>> - * !! fall through !!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
>> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
>> - /*
>> - * !! fall through !!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
>> if (rport->plogi_retries < BFA_FCS_RPORT_MAX_RETRIES) {
>> rport->plogi_retries++; @@ -868,9 +864,7 @@
>> bfa_fcs_rport_sm_adisc_online(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>> * At least go offline when a PLOGI is received.
>> */
>> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
>> - /*
>> - * !!! fall through !!!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
>> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
>> @@ -1056,6 +1050,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_fc4_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
>> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>> @@ -1144,9 +1139,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_offline(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_plogiacc(rport, NULL);
>> break;
>> }
>> - /*
>> - * !! fall through !!
>> - */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
>> if (!bfa_fcs_lport_is_online(rport->port)) { @@ -1303,6
>> +1296,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
>> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>> @@ -1346,6 +1340,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_logo_sending(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
>> + /* fall through */
>> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
>> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
>> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>>

Acked-by: Sudarsana Kalluru <[email protected]>

2019-01-11 09:01:22

by Hannes Reinecke

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/41] scsi: aic7xxx: aic79xx: mark expected switch fall-through

On 1/10/19 9:15 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Friendly ping (second one):
>
> Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> On 12/19/18 9:36 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Friendly ping:
>>
>> Who can ack or review this patch, please?
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Gustavo
>>
>> On 11/27/18 10:26 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> Notice that, in some cases, I replaced "FALLTHROUGH" with a "fall
>>> through"
>>> annotation and then placed it at the bottom of the corresponding switch
>>> case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114961 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114962 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114963 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114964 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic79xx_core.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
Sorry, I thought I'd done so already.

Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>

Cheers,

Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
[email protected] +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

2019-01-11 10:21:25

by Sudarsana Reddy Kalluru

[permalink] [raw]

Hannes,

>> Friendly ping (second one):
>>
>> Who can ack/review/take this patch, please?

Applied to 5.1/scsi-queue.

--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering