On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:29:12PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
> On 07/20/2017 02:37 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:53:51PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> network.c:1234:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> network.c:1382:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> network.c:1477:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> network.c:1508:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> network.c:1574:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >
> > Looks like after this an out-of-range port number will be treated as an
> > unspecified port rather than returning an error. That sounds wrong.
> >
> > I didn't check the others.
> >
> > All of these "break" statements added without any explanation are making
> > me nervous.
> Yeah you are right... Boy there are some subtle things going there...
>
> Thanks for the review and cycles!
If you respin these patches, it'd be helpful to either add a short
comment explaining why the fallthrough is correct, or if you add a
break, explain in the changelog why the old behavior was wrong and
whether there was an actual user-visible bug.
Totally understood if that's too much work to be worth it right now, but
then I'd rather let the warnings wait a little longer. If that makes it
hard to see real warnings, then we can turn off those compiler flags for
now. Quick fixes to shut up warnings can be as risky as missed
warnings.
--b.
>
> steved.
>
> >
> > --b.
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson <steved@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> utils/mount/network.c | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/utils/mount/network.c b/utils/mount/network.c
> >> index 281e935..19f14e5 100644
> >> --- a/utils/mount/network.c
> >> +++ b/utils/mount/network.c
> >> @@ -1235,6 +1235,7 @@ nfs_nfs_program(struct mount_options *options, unsigned long *program)
> >> *program = tmp;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> + break;
> >> case PO_BAD_VALUE:
> >> nfs_error(_("%s: invalid value for 'nfsprog=' option"),
> >> progname);
> >> @@ -1383,6 +1384,7 @@ nfs_nfs_port(struct mount_options *options, unsigned long *port)
> >> *port = tmp;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> + break;
> >> case PO_BAD_VALUE:
> >> nfs_error(_("%s: invalid value for 'port=' option"),
> >> progname);
> >> @@ -1478,6 +1480,7 @@ nfs_mount_program(struct mount_options *options, unsigned long *program)
> >> *program = tmp;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> + break;
> >> case PO_BAD_VALUE:
> >> nfs_error(_("%s: invalid value for 'mountprog=' option"),
> >> progname);
> >> @@ -1509,6 +1512,7 @@ nfs_mount_version(struct mount_options *options, unsigned long *version)
> >> *version = tmp;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> + break;
> >> case PO_BAD_VALUE:
> >> nfs_error(_("%s: invalid value for 'mountvers=' option"),
> >> progname);
> >> @@ -1575,6 +1579,7 @@ nfs_mount_port(struct mount_options *options, unsigned long *port)
> >> *port = tmp;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> + break;
> >> case PO_BAD_VALUE:
> >> nfs_error(_("%s: invalid value for 'mountport=' option"),
> >> progname);
> >> --
> >> 2.13.3
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
