On 2/20/19 12:34 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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.
>>
Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation,
and the code can be rewritten as follows:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID)
state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1;
else
state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
>
> Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
> back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
>
We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
Thanks
--
Gustavo
