Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

[Wang, Haiyue]

On 2018-02-15 05:46, Corey Minyard wrote:

On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.


Thanks, queued for next release.

-corey


Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0

  drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc 
*kcs_bmc)

  switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
  case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
  kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
+    /* fall through */
Thanks, Gustavo. I see many modules have '/* fall through */', but I 
thought it was a just C comment, I didn't

add it for making code clean. Learned it, thank you! :-)

    case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:
  if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {

Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 02/14/2018 03:46 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:

On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.


Thanks, queued for next release.



Thanks, Corey.
--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

[Corey Minyard]

On 02/14/2018 11:30 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.


Thanks, queued for next release.

-corey


Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0

  drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
+   /* fall through */
  
  	case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:

if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {

[PATCH] ipmi: kcs_bmc: mark expected switch fall-through in kcs_bmc_handle_data

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465255 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
This code was compiled with GCC 7.3.0

 drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
index 3a3498a..6476bfb 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/kcs_bmc.c
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ static void kcs_bmc_handle_data(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc)
switch (kcs_bmc->phase) {
case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_START:
kcs_bmc->phase = KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA;
+   /* fall through */
 
case KCS_PHASE_WRITE_DATA:
if (kcs_bmc->data_in_idx < KCS_MSG_BUFSIZ) {
-- 
2.7.4