On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:20:39 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > switch (i) {
> > case X:
> > ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> > + /* fall through */
> > case Y:
> > ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> > + /* fall through */
> > case Z:
> > ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> > }
>
> Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is
> stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same:
>
> X: set X, Y, and Z
> Y: set Y and Z
> Z: set Z
>
> result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong.
>
Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
Jonathan
>
