From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Cc: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 21:30:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181008213004.033e2b29@archlinux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181008172332.GA29816@embeddedor.com>
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Hi,
I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement
in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch
and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps
I'm missing something!
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> switch (i) {
> case X:
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> + /* fall through */
> case Y:
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> + /* fall through */
> case Z:
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-09 3:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-08 17:23 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2019-02-12 21:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-20 18:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-20 18:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-21 1:23 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-21 1:48 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181008213004.033e2b29@archlinux \
--to=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
--cc=gwendal@chromium.org \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
--cc=thierry.escande@collabora.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).