[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181008213004.033e2b29@archlinux>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 21:30:04 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch
fall-throughs
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Hi,
I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement
in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch
and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps
I'm missing something!
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> switch (i) {
> case X:
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> + /* fall through */
> case Y:
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> + /* fall through */
> case Z:
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists