* [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
@ 2018-07-18 8:03 ` Miquel Raynal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Miquel Raynal @ 2018-07-18 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Gustavo,
Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
2018 08:29:02 -0500:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
> return;
>
> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
> -
> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
> + /* fall through */
Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
Thanks,
Miqu?l
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
2018-07-18 8:03 ` Miquel Raynal
@ 2018-07-19 16:09 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-07-19 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miquel Raynal
Cc: Wan ZongShun, Boris Brezillon, Richard Weinberger,
David Woodhouse, Brian Norris, Marek Vasut, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-mtd, linux-kernel
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
>
Oh OK. I'll fix it.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
> 2018 08:29:02 -0500:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
>> return;
>>
>> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
>> -
>> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
>
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the time this code has been
there, this might be a missing-break false positive. But, now that I'm double
checking, it may well be that this is an actual missing-break bug.
I can send a patch to fix this, but as I'm not familiar with the code, it'd be
of great help if someone could help me to verify this.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
@ 2018-07-19 16:09 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-07-19 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
>
Oh OK. I'll fix it.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
> 2018 08:29:02 -0500:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
>> return;
>>
>> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
>> -
>> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
>
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the time this code has been
there, this might be a missing-break false positive. But, now that I'm double
checking, it may well be that this is an actual missing-break bug.
I can send a patch to fix this, but as I'm not familiar with the code, it'd be
of great help if someone could help me to verify this.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
2018-07-18 8:03 ` Miquel Raynal
@ 2018-07-19 16:20 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-07-19 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miquel Raynal
Cc: Wan ZongShun, Boris Brezillon, Richard Weinberger,
David Woodhouse, Brian Norris, Marek Vasut, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-mtd, linux-kernel
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
>
Oh OK. I'll fix it. Thanks.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
> 2018 08:29:02 -0500:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
>> return;
>>
>> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
>> -
>> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
>
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the long time this code has been there,
this might be a missing-break-in-switch false positive. But, due to your comments and a
double check at the code, it may well be that this is an actual bug and that a return
statement should be added after calling write_cmd_reg. Similar to the cases above.
I can send a patch to fix this, but it would be great if someone could help me to verify
this first. :)
Thanks for the feedback!
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH] mtd: nuc900_nand: mark expected switch fall-through
@ 2018-07-19 16:20 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-07-19 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Miquel,
On 07/18/2018 03:03 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> Prefix should be "mtd: rawnand: nuc900:"
>
Oh OK. I'll fix it. Thanks.
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul
> 2018 08:29:02 -0500:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1471717 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> index af5b32c9..53a9f6c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nuc900_nand.c
>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void nuc900_nand_command_lp(struct mtd_info *mtd, unsigned int command,
>> return;
>>
>> case NAND_CMD_READ0:
>> -
>> write_cmd_reg(nand, NAND_CMD_READSTART);
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Have you checked this is actually the right thing to do?
>
Actually, no. My first impression was that due to the long time this code has been there,
this might be a missing-break-in-switch false positive. But, due to your comments and a
double check at the code, it may well be that this is an actual bug and that a return
statement should be added after calling write_cmd_reg. Similar to the cases above.
I can send a patch to fix this, but it would be great if someone could help me to verify
this first. :)
Thanks for the feedback!
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread