Re: [PATCH] scsi: st: Add missing break in switch statement in st_ioctl()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/17/2021 5:54 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

Clang + -Wimplicit-fallthrough warns:

drivers/scsi/st.c:3831:2: warning: unannotated fall-through between
switch labels [-Wimplicit-fallthrough]
         default:
         ^
drivers/scsi/st.c:3831:2: note: insert 'break;' to avoid fall-through
         default:
         ^
         break;
1 warning generated.

Clang's -Wimplicit-fallthrough is a little bit more pedantic than GCC's,
requiring every case block to end in break, return, or fallthrough,
rather than allowing implicit fallthroughs to cases that just contain
break or return. Add a break so that there is no more warning, as has
been done all over the tree already.

Fixes: 2e27f576abc6 ("scsi: scsi_ioctl: Call scsi_cmd_ioctl() from scsi_ioctl()")
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/scsi/st.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/st.c b/drivers/scsi/st.c
index 2d1b0594af69..0e36a36ed24d 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/st.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/st.c
@@ -3828,6 +3828,7 @@ static long st_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd_in, unsigned long arg)
  	case CDROM_SEND_PACKET:
  		if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
  			return -EPERM;
+		break;
  	default:
  		break;
  	}

base-commit: 58dd8f6e1cf8c47e81fbec9f47099772ab75278b


Well, that sure is ugly.

Do you think the following change would cause any static checkers to spit
their dummys and throw their toys out of the pram?

@@ -3828,6 +3828,7 @@ static long st_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd_in, unsigned long arg)
  	case CDROM_SEND_PACKET:
  		if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
  			return -EPERM;
+		break;
-	default:
-		break;
  	}
  	

I cannot speak for other static checkers but clang does not complain in this instance. cmd_in is the switch value, which is unsigned int; as far as I am aware, clang will only complain about a switch not handling all values when switching on an enumerated type.

Gustavo, if you are already handling all of the other warnings in -next, do you want to take this one too?

Cheers,
Nathan



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux