lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] afs: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in many cases I placed a /* Fall through */ comment
> at the bottom of the case, which what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> In other cases I had to tweak a bit the format of the comments.
>
> This patch suppresses ALL missing-break-in-switch false positives
> in fs/afs
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115042 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115043 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115045 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357430 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115047 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115050 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1467806 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1467807 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1467811 ("Missing break in switch")
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115041 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

These look good to me. Gets us another step to finishing this. :)

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-09 02:11    [W:0.093 / U:5.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site