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: <64d7e1c9-9c6a-93f3-ce0a-c24b1c236071@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:58:13 +0100
From:   Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 25/08/2020 17:49, 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.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
I think it probably does make sense as two patches. I'll do a resend.