linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 127/141] staging: qlge: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:55:10 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
        Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 127/141] staging: qlge: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 01:42:57PM +0900, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> On 2020-11-20 12:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> > by explicitly adding a break statement instead of letting the code fall
> > through to the next case.
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > index 27da386f9d87..c41b1373dcf8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > @@ -1385,6 +1385,7 @@ static void ql_categorize_rx_err(struct ql_adapter *qdev, u8 rx_err,
> >  		break;
> >  	case IB_MAC_IOCB_RSP_ERR_CRC:
> >  		stats->rx_crc_err++;
> > +		break;
> >  	default:
> >  		break;
> >  	}
> 
> In this instance, it think it would be more appropriate to remove the
> "default" case.

There are checkers which complain about that.  (As a static checker
developer myself, I think complaining about missing default cases is a
waste of everyone's time).

regards,
dan carpenter