[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad24ee3a-0212-0762-87c4-9a93faecbeef@embeddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:20:08 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
>
Oh OK. I'll fix it. Thanks.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
> 2018 08:29:02 -0500:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
>> return;
>>
>> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
>> -
>> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
>
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the long time this code has been there,
this might be a missing-break-in-switch false positive. But, due to your comments and a
double check at the code, it may well be that this is an actual bug and that a return
statement should be added after calling write_cmd_reg. Similar to the cases above.
I can send a patch to fix this, but it would be great if someone could help me to verify
this first. :)
Thanks for the feedback!
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists