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: 58dd8f6e1cf8c47e81fbec9f47099772ab75278bWell, 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
