Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [sgi-xp] Missing break or false positive? | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Date | Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:37:33 -0500 |
| |
Hi all,
Friendly ping:
Who can provide some feedback on this?
Thanks -- Gustavo
On 2/26/19 10:24 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > 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 >
| |