Hello Pascal, On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 06:58:18PM +0000, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 04:38:12PM +0200, Pascal van Leeuwen wrote: > > > @@ -112,7 +123,7 @@ static void safexcel_cipher_token(struct > > > safexcel_cipher_ctx *ctx, u8 > > *iv, > > > block_sz = DES3_EDE_BLOCK_SIZE; > > > cdesc->control_data.options |= > > > EIP197_OPTION_2_TOKEN_IV_CMD; > > > break; > > > - case SAFEXCEL_AES: > > > + default: /* case SAFEXCEL_AES */ > > > > Can't you keep an explicit case here? > > > If I do that, the compiler will complain about SAFEXCEL_CHACHA20 not > being covered. And Chacha20 won't even make it this far, so it doesn't > make much sense to add that to the switch. > > I suppose an explicit case plus an empty default would be an alternative? > But I figured the comment should suffice to remind anyone working on that > switch statement what it should really do. I'm fine with either approach.
Yes, please use an explicit case and an empty default. Thanks, Antoine -- Antoine Ténart, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com