Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 22 May 2019 15:20:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: onenand_base: Avoid fall-through warnings
Message-ID: <201905221519.88B9364E@keescook>
References: <20190522180446.GA30082@embeddedor>
 <201905221403.642AF6092@keescook>
 <20190522235738.68059906@collabora.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190522235738.68059906@collabora.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:57:38PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> All this look suspicious, and even if the fall through logic
> has no side effects in practice (which I'm still not sure is the case),
> I think it'd be better to explicitly set the flags that have
> to be set in each case statement and add breaks.

Yeah, totally agreed. :)

-- 
Kees Cook