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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:01:55 -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 11:47, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 11:49 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> >> 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. > > What makes you think I didn't already do that? > You would have noticed this should be two patches. > I think your desire for micropatches is unnecessary. > You might be generalizing. My 'desire' here is justified and specific. Thanks -- Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists