linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: isp1760-hcd: Fix fall-through annotations

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: <20190501160327.GA19281@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 May 2019 18:03:27 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     Arvid Brodin <arvid.brodin@...a.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: isp1760-hcd: Fix fall-through annotations

On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:39:34AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> This patch fixes the following warning:
> 
> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c: In function ‘collect_qtds’:
> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:788:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>       mem_reads8(hcd->regs, qtd->payload_addr,
>       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>         qtd->data_buffer,
>         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>         qtd->actual_length);
>         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:792:5: note: here
>      case OUT_PID:
>      ^~~~
> 
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> 
> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comments are modified
> in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
> 
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> ---
> Notice that this code has been out there since 2011, and who
> introduced the question mark was the original developer.
> 
> It'd be good if someone can confirm that the fall-through
> has been intentional all this time.

Yes, it looks intentional.  Messy, and as no one has complained since
2011, let's leave it alone, I'll queue this up.

thanks,

greg k-h