lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject[sgi-xp] Missing break or false positive?
Hi all,

I'm taking a look into the following piece of code in drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c:

561 case XPC_ACTIVATE_MQ_MSG_CHCTL_OPENCOMPLETE_UV: {
562 struct xpc_activate_mq_msg_chctl_opencomplete_uv *msg;
563
564 if (!part_setup)
565 break;
566
567 msg = container_of(msg_hdr, struct
568 xpc_activate_mq_msg_chctl_opencomplete_uv, hdr);
569 spin_lock_irqsave(&part->chctl_lock, irq_flags);
570 part->chctl.flags[msg->ch_number] |= XPC_CHCTL_OPENCOMPLETE;
571 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&part->chctl_lock, irq_flags);
572
573 xpc_wakeup_channel_mgr(part);
574 }

and I'm trying to figure out if the following warning is due to a missing break
at the end of the case, or if this is just a false positive and a /* fall through */
annotation should be added:

drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c: In function ‘xpc_handle_activate_mq_msg_uv’:
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c:573:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
xpc_wakeup_channel_mgr(part);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c:575:2: note: here
case XPC_ACTIVATE_MQ_MSG_MARK_ENGAGED_UV:
^~~~

The piece of code above was introduced by the following commit in 2009:

efdd06ed181a88a11e612238c1ac04668e665395

The cases are pretty similar, and the fact that this code was introduced
in the middle of the switch statement and not at the end or the beginning,
leads me to believe that this is a false positive. On the other hand,
all the other cases end with a break or a return but this one. So, I
better ask your opinions about this.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-27 05:25    [W:0.203 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site