lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kdb: kdb_main: mark expected switch fall-throughs
From
Date
On 05/08/18 05:14, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115090 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115091 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114700 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

Adding fall through isn't wrong but its reasonable to ask why there is a
complex hand unrolled loop here in the first place (and doubly so
without a comment). The whole switch statement would be much clear
expressed as:

for (j=0; j<bytesperword; j++)
*c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
addr += bytesperword;


Daniel.


> ---
> kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
> index 2ddfce8..2249645 100644
> --- a/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
> +++ b/kernel/debug/kdb/kdb_main.c
> @@ -1545,13 +1545,16 @@ static void kdb_md_line(const char *fmtstr, unsigned long addr,
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> addr += 4;
> + /* fall through */
> case 4:
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> addr += 2;
> + /* fall through */
> case 2:
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> addr++;
> + /* fall through */
> case 1:
> *c++ = printable_char(*cp++);
> addr++;
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-15 16:37    [W:0.162 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site