linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/qib: remove superfluous fallthrough statements

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: <da65ca20-49cb-2940-76d6-7e341687a9e2@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:49:16 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
Cc:     Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/qib: remove superfluous fallthrough statements



On 8/25/20 11:26, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 11:19 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> On 8/25/20 10:51, Alex Dewar wrote:
>>> Commit 36a8f01cd24b ("IB/qib: Add congestion control agent implementation")
>>> erroneously marked a couple of switch cases as /* FALLTHROUGH */, which
>>> were later converted to fallthrough statements by commit df561f6688fe
>>> ("treewide: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword"). This triggered a Coverity
>>> warning about unreachable code.
>>>
>>> Remove the fallthrough statements and replace the mass of gotos with
>>> simple return statements to make the code terser and less bug-prone.
>>>
>>
>> This should be split up into two separate patches: one to address the
>> fallthrough markings, and another one for the gotos.
> 
> I don't think it's necessary to break this into multiple patches.
> Logical changes in a single patch are just fine, micro patches
> aren't that useful.
> 

There is a reason for this. Read the changelog text and review the patch.

Thanks
--
Gustavo