On 2/20/2018 10:05 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Hi Santosh,
On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Hi,
2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int
num_sgs)
case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
zcopy_cookie = true;
+ /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;
So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?
No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or
continue statement is missing.
Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the
following line to your Makefile:
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)
You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.
That make sense.
Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)
In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.
Got it. Thanks !!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
