[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d81468df-1de5-8aaf-9c7b-ce490a358bea@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:39:19 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Anil Gurumurthy <anil.gurumurthy@...gic.com>,
Sudarsana Kalluru <sudarsana.kalluru@...gic.com>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch
fall-throughs
Hi,
Friendly ping:
Who can ack or review this patch, please?
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that I replaced "!! fall through !!" and "!!! fall through !!!"
> comments with "fall through" annotations, which is what GCC is
> expecting to find.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744900 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744901 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c | 19 +++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> index de50349a39ce..1e400f2aaece 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c
> @@ -427,17 +427,13 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_plogi(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport, enum rport_event event)
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>
> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
> if (rport->plogi_retries < BFA_FCS_RPORT_MAX_RETRIES) {
> rport->plogi_retries++;
> @@ -868,9 +864,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_adisc_online(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
> * At least go offline when a PLOGI is received.
> */
> bfa_fcxp_discard(rport->fcxp);
> - /*
> - * !!! fall through !!!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_FAILED:
> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
> @@ -1056,6 +1050,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_fc4_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
> @@ -1144,9 +1139,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_offline(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_plogiacc(rport, NULL);
> break;
> }
> - /*
> - * !! fall through !!
> - */
> + /* fall through */
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_ADDRESS_CHANGE:
> if (!bfa_fcs_lport_is_online(rport->port)) {
> @@ -1303,6 +1296,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_hcb_logosend(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
> @@ -1346,6 +1340,7 @@ bfa_fcs_rport_sm_logo_sending(struct bfa_fcs_rport_s *rport,
>
> case RPSM_EVENT_LOGO_RCVD:
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_logo_acc(rport);
> + /* fall through */
> case RPSM_EVENT_PRLO_RCVD:
> if (rport->prlo == BFA_TRUE)
> bfa_fcs_rport_send_prlo_acc(rport);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists