Jens, > It's effectively the same thing, I really don't think we need (or should > have) a BUG/BUG_ON for this condition. Just return an error? > Just include a T10_PI_TYPE0_PROTECTION case in the switch, have it log > and return an error. Add a comment on how it's impossible, if need be. > I don't think it has to be more complicated than that. The additional case statement is inside an iterator loop which would bomb for Type 0 since there is no protection buffer to iterate over. We'd presumably never reach that default: case before dereferencing something bad. t10_pi_verify() is a static function exclusively called by helpers that pass in either 1 or 3 as argument. It seems kind of silly that we have to jump through hoops to silence a compiler warning for this. I would prefer a BUILD_BUG_ON(type == T10_PI_TYPE0_PROTECTION) at the top of the function but that does not satisfy the -Wswitch logic either. Anyway. Enough energy wasted on this. I'm OK with either the default: case or Max' if statement approach. My objection is purely wrt. introducing semantically incorrect and/or unreachable code to silence compiler warnings. Seems backwards. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
