linux-kernel - Re: block: new gcc-5.1 warnings..

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20150527225651.GA23427@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date:	Thu, 28 May 2015 01:56:51 +0300
From:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block: new gcc-5.1 warnings..

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 03:32:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So gcc-5.1 seems to have a few new warnings, most of which seem of
> dubious value, but whatever.
> 
> One of them
> 
> drivers/block/hd.c: In function ‘hd_request’:
> drivers/block/hd.c:630:11: warning: switch condition has boolean value
> [-Wswitch-bool]
>    switch (rq_data_dir(req)) {
>            ^
> 
> just made me go "what?" since doing a switch on a boolean is perfectly
> fine, and there can be various valid reasons to do so (using "break"
> and fall-through etc can make the structure of the true/false cases
> nicer).

In which situation fall-through switch() would make better structure then
plain if()? It's easier to miss-read fall-through.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/