netdev - Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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: <1db2edde-5e21-6eab-d643-ae257ecb311b@cogentembedded.com>
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:17:14 +0300
From:   Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
Cc:     linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */
>> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which
>> is what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>>  				CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>>  				CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>>  		}
>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
>> +		/* fall through */
> 
>    Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all.
> 
>> +	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>  		/*
>>  		 * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>>  		 * to  : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>>  		netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>>  		cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>>  		cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
>> +		/* fall through */
> 
>    Again, we don;t need it here.
> 
>> +	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>  		reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF;
>>  		reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP;
>>  		break;

   Ignore me, I misread the code...

MBR, Sergei