On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 9:10 AM <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This is a upcoming change to clean up a new warning treewide. > I am wondering if the change could be one mega patch (see below) or > normal patch per file about 100 patches or somewhere half way by collecting > early acks. > > clang has a number of useful, new warnings see > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html > > This change cleans up -Wunreachable-code-break > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wunreachable-code-break > for 266 of 485 warnings in this week's linux-next, allyesconfig on x86_64. > > The method of fixing was to look for warnings where the preceding statement > was a simple statement and by inspection made the subsequent break unneeded. > In order of frequency these look like > > return and break > > switch (c->x86_vendor) { > case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: > intel_p5_mcheck_init(c); > return 1; > - break; > > goto and break > > default: > operation = 0; /* make gcc happy */ > goto fail_response; > - break; > > break and break > case COLOR_SPACE_SRGB: > /* by pass */ > REG_SET(OUTPUT_CSC_CONTROL, 0, > OUTPUT_CSC_GRPH_MODE, 0); > break; > - break; > > The exception to the simple statement, is a switch case with a block > and the end of block is a return > > struct obj_buffer *buff = r->ptr; > return scnprintf(str, PRIV_STR_SIZE, > "size=%u\naddr=0x%X\n", buff->size, > buff->addr); > } > - break; > > Not considered obvious and excluded, breaks after > multi level switches > complicated if-else if-else blocks > panic() or similar calls > > And there is an odd addition of a 'fallthrough' in drivers/tty/nozomi.c [..] > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > index 5a7c80053c62..2f250874b1a4 100644 > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > @@ -200,11 +200,10 @@ ssize_t nd_namespace_store(struct device *dev, > } > break; > default: > len = -EBUSY; > goto out_attach; > - break; > } Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
