Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size | From | Santosh Shilimkar <> | Date | Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:42:31 -0800 |
| |
On 2/20/2018 10:05 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi Santosh, > > On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>> where we are expecting to fall through. >>> >>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch") >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >>> --- >>> net/rds/send.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c >>> index 028ab59..79d158b 100644 >>> --- a/net/rds/send.c >>> +++ b/net/rds/send.c >>> @@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int >>> num_sgs) >>> case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE: >>> zcopy_cookie = true; >>> + /* fall through */ >>> + >>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST: >>> case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP: >>> cmsg_groups |= 2; >>> >> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ? >> > > No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or > continue statement is missing. > > Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the > following line to your Makefile: > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough) > > You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing. > That make sense.
>> Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious >> about it if some one makes a spell error in this >> comment what happens ;-) >> > > In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in > switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning. > Got it. Thanks !!
| |