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: <36066d75-899e-c9ca-835e-0040659c914b@embeddedor.com>
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