[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056539 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
index fc9aac2..728b5f3 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
@@ -666,6 +666,7 @@ static irqreturn_t interrupt_transfer(struct driver_data *drv_data)
 			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
 			case 4:
 				bytes_left >>= 1;
+				/* Fall through */
 			case 2:
 				bytes_left >>= 1;
 			}
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056539 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
index fc9aac2..728b5f3 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-pxa2xx.c
@@ -666,6 +666,7 @@ static irqreturn_t interrupt_transfer(struct driver_data *drv_data)
 			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
 			case 4:
 				bytes_left >>= 1;
+				/* Fall through */
 			case 2:
 				bytes_left >>= 1;
 			}
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>  			case 4:
>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
> +				/* Fall through */
>  			case 2:
>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>  			}

I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
readability I think.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>  			case 4:
>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
> +				/* Fall through */
>  			case 2:
>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>  			}

I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
readability I think.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20181003/7c2fbfa9/attachment.sig>

Re: [PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 10/3/18 5:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
>>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>>  			case 4:
>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>> +				/* Fall through */
>>  			case 2:
>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>  			}
> 
> I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
> rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
> case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
> readability I think.
> 

Okay. I agree. I'll rewrite and send v2.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 10/3/18 5:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
>>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>>  			case 4:
>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>> +				/* Fall through */
>>  			case 2:
>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>  			}
> 
> I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
> rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
> case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
> readability I think.
> 

Okay. I agree. I'll rewrite and send v2.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 10/3/18 5:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/3/18 5:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>>>  			case 4:
>>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>> +				/* Fall through */
>>>  			case 2:
>>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>>  			}
>>
>> I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
>> rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
>> case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
>> readability I think.
>>
> 
> Okay. I agree. I'll rewrite and send v2.
> 

I'll actually send a completely new patch for this.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

[PATCH] spi: pxa2xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 10/3/18 5:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/3/18 5:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 02:12:11PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>>  			switch (drv_data->n_bytes) {
>>>  			case 4:
>>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>> +				/* Fall through */
>>>  			case 2:
>>>  				bytes_left >>= 1;
>>>  			}
>>
>> I think this code is just being too cute and it'd be better to just
>> rewrite it to directly do the expected number of shifts directly in each
>> case and have break statements; your fix is good but still not ideal for
>> readability I think.
>>
> 
> Okay. I agree. I'll rewrite and send v2.
> 

I'll actually send a completely new patch for this.

Thanks
--
Gustavo