Messages in this thread | | | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Makefile: Globally enable fall-through warning | Date | Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:31:18 -0500 |
| |
On 7/28/19 12:14 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:42:28AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> Hi Guenter, >> >> On 7/28/19 8:58 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:46:17PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>>> Now that all the fall-through warnings have been addressed in the >>>> kernel, enable the fall-through warning globally. >>>> >>> >>> Not really "all". >>> >>> powerpc:85xx/sbc8548_defconfig: >>> >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/align.c: In function ‘emulate_spe’: >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/align.c:178:8: error: this statement may fall through >>> >>> Plus many more similar errors in the same file. >>> >>> All sh builds: >>> >>> arch/sh/kernel/disassemble.c: In function 'print_sh_insn': >>> arch/sh/kernel/disassemble.c:478:8: error: this statement may fall through >>> >>> Again, this is seen in several places. >>> >>> mips:cavium_octeon_defconfig: >>> >>> arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-usb.c: In function 'dwc3_octeon_clocks_start': >>> include/linux/device.h:1499:2: error: this statement may fall through >>> >>> None of those are from recent changes. And this is just from my small >>> subset of test builds. >>> >> >> Thank you for letting me know about this. I don't have access to build >> infrastructure like yours. >> > > I am always happy to run test builds on my infrastructure. >
Thank you!
>> My build infrastructure is similar to that of Linus. >> >> But if you send me all of those I can create a patch and send it back >> to you to make sure what you see is addressed. If we can coordinate for >> this it'd be great for everybody. :) >> > > Just have a look at the output of https://kerneltests.org/builders/, > in the 'master' and/or 'next' column. There are many additional warnings > in 'next'. Only downside is that you won't see the warnings unless there > are also build errors, but -next tends to have lots of those. >
I see.
mm... for some reason I'm not able to establish connection with that site...
> Just wondering ... wouldn't it be possible to run a coccinelle script > to identify those problems automatically, without depending on compile > warnings ? Or smatch/sparse, maybe ? >
That was a common question from people along the whole process. The short answer is: no. The reason for that is that Coccinelle is not a sophisticated enough tool to determine if we are dealing with a false positive or an actual bug.
That's why a code audit was needed.
Thanks -- Gustavo
| |