Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:55:10 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@marvell.com,
        Manish Chopra <manishc@marvell.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 127/141] staging: qlge: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang
Message-ID: <20201130125510.GF2767@kadam>
References: <cover.1605896059.git.gustavoars@kernel.org>
 <673bd9f27bcc2df8c9d12be94f54001d8066d4ab.1605896060.git.gustavoars@kernel.org>
 <20201125044257.GA142382@f3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201125044257.GA142382@f3>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 01:42:57PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2020-11-20 12:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> > by explicitly adding a break statement instead of letting the code fall
> > through to the next case.
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > index 27da386f9d87..c41b1373dcf8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > @@ -1385,6 +1385,7 @@ static void ql_categorize_rx_err(struct ql_adapter *qdev, u8 rx_err,
> >  		break;
> >  	case IB_MAC_IOCB_RSP_ERR_CRC:
> >  		stats->rx_crc_err++;
> > +		break;
> >  	default:
> >  		break;
> >  	}
> 
> In this instance, it think it would be more appropriate to remove the
> "default" case.

There are checkers which complain about that.  (As a static checker
developer myself, I think complaining about missing default cases is a
waste of everyone's time).

regards,
dan carpenter