Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

2021-04-20 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva



On 4/20/21 15:30, Jens Axboe wrote:

>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>>> switch (interpret_errors()) {
>>> case 1:
>>> cont->error();
>>> +   fallthrough;
>>> case 2:
>>> break;
>>> case 0:
> 
> I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied
> for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases
> are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are
> obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ.
> 
> IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the
> two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes
> sense.
> 

Yeah; I'll resend this with a break, instead.

Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo


Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

2021-04-20 Thread Denis Efremov
Hi,

Sorry, this was missed somehow.

I would rewrite it to something more simple instead of adding fallthrough.

What about?

--- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
+++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
@@ -2123,12 +2123,14 @@ static void set_floppy(int drive)
 static void format_interrupt(void)
 {
switch (interpret_errors()) {
+   case 0:
+   cont->done(1);
+   break;
case 1:
cont->error();
+   break;
case 2:
break;
-   case 0:
-   cont->done(1);
}
cont->redo();
 }

On 4/20/21 11:25 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Friendly ping: who can take this, please?
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
> 
> On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
>> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the
>> code is intended to fall through to the next case.
>>
>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
>> ---
>>  drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>>  switch (interpret_errors()) {
>>  case 1:
>>  cont->error();
>> +fallthrough;
>>  case 2:
>>  break;
>>  case 0:
>>


Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

2021-04-20 Thread Jens Axboe
On 4/20/21 2:25 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Friendly ping: who can take this, please?
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
> 
> On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
>> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the
>> code is intended to fall through to the next case.
>>
>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
>> ---
>>  drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
>> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>>  switch (interpret_errors()) {
>>  case 1:
>>  cont->error();
>> +fallthrough;
>>  case 2:
>>  break;
>>  case 0:

I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied
for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases
are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are
obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ.

IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the
two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes
sense.

-- 
Jens Axboe



Re: [PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

2021-04-20 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
Hi all,

Friendly ping: who can take this, please?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the
> code is intended to fall through to the next case.
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
> ---
>  drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
>   switch (interpret_errors()) {
>   case 1:
>   cont->error();
> + fallthrough;
>   case 2:
>   break;
>   case 0:
> 


[PATCH 032/141] floppy: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

2020-11-20 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning
by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the
code is intended to fall through to the next case.

Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
 drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c
index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644
--- a/drivers/block/floppy.c
+++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c
@@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void)
switch (interpret_errors()) {
case 1:
cont->error();
+   fallthrough;
case 2:
break;
case 0:
-- 
2.27.0