linux-kernel - [PATCH 20/20] staging: lustre: rpc: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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: <93be012259825eb72c235b293f44e729797b38c9.1507781178.git.garsilva@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:17:43 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Subject: [PATCH 20/20] staging: lustre: rpc: mark expected switch
 fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1077604
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1077605
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/rpc.c | 13 +++++++++----
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/rpc.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/rpc.c
index 77c222c..74ef3c3 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/rpc.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/selftest/rpc.c
@@ -1037,6 +1037,7 @@ srpc_handle_rpc(struct swi_workitem *wi)
 			ev->ev_status = rc;
 		}
 	}
+		/* fall through */
 	case SWI_STATE_BULK_STARTED:
 		LASSERT(!rpc->srpc_bulk || ev->ev_fired);
 
@@ -1237,7 +1238,8 @@ srpc_send_rpc(struct swi_workitem *wi)
 			break;
 
 		wi->swi_state = SWI_STATE_REQUEST_SENT;
-		/* perhaps more events, fall thru */
+		/* perhaps more events */
+		/* fall through */
 	case SWI_STATE_REQUEST_SENT: {
 		enum srpc_msg_type type = srpc_service2reply(rpc->crpc_service);
 
@@ -1269,6 +1271,7 @@ srpc_send_rpc(struct swi_workitem *wi)
 
 		wi->swi_state = SWI_STATE_REPLY_RECEIVED;
 	}
+		/* fall through */
 	case SWI_STATE_REPLY_RECEIVED:
 		if (do_bulk && !rpc->crpc_bulkev.ev_fired)
 			break;
@@ -1448,6 +1451,7 @@ srpc_lnet_ev_handler(struct lnet_event *ev)
 			srpc_data.rpc_counters.rpcs_sent++;
 			spin_unlock(&srpc_data.rpc_glock);
 		}
+		/* fall through */
 	case SRPC_REPLY_RCVD:
 	case SRPC_BULK_REQ_RCVD:
 		crpc = rpcev->ev_data;
@@ -1570,7 +1574,7 @@ srpc_lnet_ev_handler(struct lnet_event *ev)
 
 		if (!ev->unlinked)
 			break; /* wait for final event */
-
+		/* fall through */
 	case SRPC_BULK_PUT_SENT:
 		if (!ev->status && ev->type != LNET_EVENT_UNLINK) {
 			spin_lock(&srpc_data.rpc_glock);
@@ -1582,6 +1586,7 @@ srpc_lnet_ev_handler(struct lnet_event *ev)
 
 			spin_unlock(&srpc_data.rpc_glock);
 		}
+		/* fall through */
 	case SRPC_REPLY_SENT:
 		srpc = rpcev->ev_data;
 		scd = srpc->srpc_scd;
@@ -1674,14 +1679,14 @@ srpc_shutdown(void)
 		spin_unlock(&srpc_data.rpc_glock);
 
 		stt_shutdown();
-
+		/* fall through */
 	case SRPC_STATE_EQ_INIT:
 		rc = LNetClearLazyPortal(SRPC_FRAMEWORK_REQUEST_PORTAL);
 		rc = LNetClearLazyPortal(SRPC_REQUEST_PORTAL);
 		LASSERT(!rc);
 		rc = LNetEQFree(srpc_data.rpc_lnet_eq);
 		LASSERT(!rc); /* the EQ should have no user by now */
-
+		/* fall through */
 	case SRPC_STATE_NI_INIT:
 		LNetNIFini();
 	}
-- 
2.7.4