linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 06:48:13 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, valdis.kletnieks@...edu
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] ASoC: wm8994: Mark expected switch fall-through



On 08/06/2018 06:34 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:55:18PM -0400, valdis.kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 11:56:12 -0500, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" said:
>>> On 08/03/2018 11:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> Basically nobody ever uses OPCLK so I'd be susprised if anyone ever
>>>> noticed.
> 
>> I wonder if nobody uses it because any attempts to do so get an error? :)
> 
> No, nobody ever physically wires up an OPCLK.  If one was there it'd be
> unavoidable.
> 
>>> I see. I wonder what's the best approach in this case. Should that code be
>>> removed instead of 'fixed'?
> 
>> I'm thinking that's a spot that needs a 'break;' added.
> 
> Yes.
> 

OK. I'll send a patch for this. But I wonder what's the best approach in this case,
so the fix can also be applied to stable.

Thanks
--
Gustavo