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

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

Date:   Fri, 03 Aug 2018 13:55:18 -0400
From:   valdis.kletnieks@...edu
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        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 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? :)

> 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.

Of course, my understanding of that code is limited to looking at the first 10
patches and the fall-through hit something reasonable, and then the last
one did a fall-through to an error return.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped