| Message ID | ede7ffddba64f621150f8f5c5f2b8f080b560903.1605896059.git.gustavoars@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix fall-through warnings for Clang | expand |
Hi all, Friendly ping: who can take this, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning > by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the > code is intended to fall through to the next case. > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c > index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c > +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c > @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void) > switch (interpret_errors()) { > case 1: > cont->error(); > + fallthrough; > case 2: > break; > case 0: >
On 4/20/21 2:25 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi all, > > Friendly ping: who can take this, please? > > Thanks > -- > Gustavo > > On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning >> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the >> code is intended to fall through to the next case. >> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> >> --- >> drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c >> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c >> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void) >> switch (interpret_errors()) { >> case 1: >> cont->error(); >> + fallthrough; >> case 2: >> break; >> case 0: I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ. IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes sense.
Hi,
Sorry, this was missed somehow.
I would rewrite it to something more simple instead of adding fallthrough.
What about?
--- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
+++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
@@ -2123,12 +2123,14 @@ static void set_floppy(int drive)
static void format_interrupt(void)
{
switch (interpret_errors()) {
+ case 0:
+ cont->done(1);
+ break;
case 1:
cont->error();
+ break;
case 2:
break;
- case 0:
- cont->done(1);
}
cont->redo();
}
On 4/20/21 11:25 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Friendly ping: who can take this, please?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
>> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the
>> code is intended to fall through to the next case.
>>
>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>> switch (interpret_errors()) {
>> case 1:
>> cont->error();
>> + fallthrough;
>> case 2:
>> break;
>> case 0:
>>
On 4/20/21 15:30, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void) >>> switch (interpret_errors()) { >>> case 1: >>> cont->error(); >>> + fallthrough; >>> case 2: >>> break; >>> case 0: > > I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied > for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases > are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are > obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ. > > IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the > two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes > sense. > Yeah; I'll resend this with a break, instead. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gustavo
diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644 --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void) switch (interpret_errors()) { case 1: cont->error(); + fallthrough; case 2: break; case 0:
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the code is intended to fall through to the next case. Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> --- drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)