Re: [PATCH][next] staging: r8188eu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

Nathan Chancellor
2021-08-18T23:32:09Z

On 8/18/2021 3:14 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Fix the following fallthrough warnings:
>
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:1498:3: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1113:4: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1147:4: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1405:3: warning: unannotated fall-through between switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
>
> This helps with the ongoing efforts to globally enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>

One small comment below.

> ---
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c | 1 +
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> index 61b239651e1a..590a4572c23f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> @@ -1495,6 +1495,7 @@ unsigned int OnAssocRsp(struct adapter *padapter, struct recv_frame *precv_frame
> break;
> case _ERPINFO_IE_:
> ERP_IE_handler(padapter, pIE);
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> index cddacf023fa6..e0ce2b796abe 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_wlan_util.c
> @@ -1110,6 +1110,7 @@ unsigned int is_ap_in_tkip(struct adapter *padapter)
> case _RSN_IE_2_:
> if (!memcmp((pIE->data + 8), RSN_TKIP_CIPHER, 4))
> return true;
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> @@ -1144,6 +1145,7 @@ unsigned int should_forbid_n_rate(struct adapter *padapter)
> if ((!memcmp((pIE->data + 8), RSN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP, 4)) ||
> (!memcmp((pIE->data + 12), RSN_CIPHER_SUITE_CCMP, 4)))
> return false;
> + break;
> default:
> break;
> }
> @@ -1401,6 +1403,7 @@ unsigned char check_assoc_AP(u8 *pframe, uint len)
> } else {
> break;
> }
> + break;

Would it be better to just remove the else branch at the same time? As
far as I can tell, there is no reason to have it.

>
> default:
> break;
>