Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:54:06 +1000 (AEST) | From | Finn Thain <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] scsi: st: Add missing break in switch statement in st_ioctl() |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> Clang + -Wimplicit-fallthrough warns: > > drivers/scsi/st.c:3831:2: warning: unannotated fall-through between > switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough] > default: > ^ > drivers/scsi/st.c:3831:2: note: insert 'break;' to avoid fall-through > default: > ^ > break; > 1 warning generated. > > Clang's -Wimplicit-fallthrough is a little bit more pedantic than GCC's, > requiring every case block to end in break, return, or fallthrough, > rather than allowing implicit fallthroughs to cases that just contain > break or return. Add a break so that there is no more warning, as has > been done all over the tree already. > > Fixes: 2e27f576abc6 ("scsi: scsi_ioctl: Call scsi_cmd_ioctl() from scsi_ioctl()") > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/scsi/st.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.c b/drivers/scsi/st.c > index 2d1b0594af69..0e36a36ed24d 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/st.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/st.c > @@ -3828,6 +3828,7 @@ static long st_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd_in, unsigned long arg) > case CDROM_SEND_PACKET: > if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) > return -EPERM; > + break; > default: > break; > } > > base-commit: 58dd8f6e1cf8c47e81fbec9f47099772ab75278b >
Well, that sure is ugly.
Do you think the following change would cause any static checkers to spit their dummys and throw their toys out of the pram?
@@ -3828,6 +3828,7 @@ static long st_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd_in, unsigned long arg) case CDROM_SEND_PACKET: if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) return -EPERM; + break; - default: - break; }
| |