Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:47:08 -0600 |
| |
On 2/20/19 12:34 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:20:39 -0800 > Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva >> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >>> >>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>> where we are expecting to fall through. >>> >>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch") >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >>> index 063e89e..d609654 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c >>> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> switch (i) { >>> case X: >>> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y; >>> + /* fall through */ >>> case Y: >>> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X; >>> + /* fall through */ >>> case Z: >>> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z; >>> } >> >> Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is >> stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same: >> >> X: set X, Y, and Z >> Y: set Y and Z >> Z: set Z >> >> result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong. >>
Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation, and the code can be rewritten as follows:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y; ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X; ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID) state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1; else state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
> > Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come > back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else. >
We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
Thanks -- Gustavo
| |