Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[David Miller]

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:10:20 -0600

> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 

Applied.

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[David Miller]

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" 
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:10:20 -0600

> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 

Applied.

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On 2/20/2018 10:05 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

Hi Santosh,

On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int 
num_sgs)

  case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
  zcopy_cookie = true;
+    /* fall through */
+
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
  cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?



No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or 
continue statement is missing.


Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the 
following line to your Makefile:


KBUILD_CFLAGS  += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)

You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.


That make sense.


Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)



In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in 
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.



Got it. Thanks !!

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On 2/20/2018 10:05 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

Hi Santosh,

On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int 
num_sgs)

  case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
  zcopy_cookie = true;
+    /* fall through */
+
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
  cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?



No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or 
continue statement is missing.


Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the 
following line to your Makefile:


KBUILD_CFLAGS  += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)

You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.


That make sense.


Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)



In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in 
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.



Got it. Thanks !!

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On 2/20/2018 10:01 AM, David Miller wrote:

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?


 From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.


Good to know about 'gcc' adding such option. Thanks !!

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

On 2/20/2018 10:01 AM, David Miller wrote:

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?


 From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.


Good to know about 'gcc' adding such option. Thanks !!

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 02/20/2018 12:01 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?


 From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.



Yeah, the one that reports those warnings is GCC.

Coverity only knows about missing break, return and continue.

--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 02/20/2018 12:01 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?


 From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.



Yeah, the one that reports those warnings is GCC.

Coverity only knows about missing break, return and continue.

--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi Santosh,

On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int 
num_sgs)

  case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
  zcopy_cookie = true;
+    /* fall through */
+
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
  cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?



No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or 
continue statement is missing.


Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the 
following line to your Makefile:


KBUILD_CFLAGS  += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)

You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.


Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)



In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in 
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.



For patch itself,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar 


--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Hi Santosh,

On 02/20/2018 11:54 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int 
num_sgs)

  case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
  zcopy_cookie = true;
+    /* fall through */
+
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
  case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
  cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?



No. Basically, Coverity only reports cases in which a break, return or 
continue statement is missing.


Now, if the statements I mention above are missing and if you add the 
following line to your Makefile:


KBUILD_CFLAGS  += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)

You will get a warning if a fall-through comment is missing.


Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)



In this case, Coverity would still report the same "Missing break in 
switch" error, but you'll get a GCC warning.



For patch itself,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar 


--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[David Miller]

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800

> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?

>From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[David Miller]

From: Santosh Shilimkar 
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:54:09 -0800

> So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?

>From what I understand, 'gcc' does in the latest versions.  Coverity
might as well, I don't know.

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
  
  		case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:

zcopy_cookie = true;
+   /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?

Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)

For patch itself,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar 

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Santosh Shilimkar]

Hi,

2/19/2018 10:10 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
  net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
  
  		case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:

zcopy_cookie = true;
+   /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;


So coverity greps for commet as "fall through" for
-Wimplicit-fallthrough build ?

Adding that comments itself if fine but was curious
about it if some one makes a spell error in this
comment what happens ;-)

For patch itself,
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar 

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Sowmini Varadhan]

On (02/19/18 12:10), Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.

Acked-by:  Sowmini Varadhan 

Re: [PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Sowmini Varadhan]

On (02/19/18 12:10), Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.

Acked-by:  Sowmini Varadhan 

[PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
 net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
 
case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
zcopy_cookie = true;
+   /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH] rds: send: mark expected switch fall-through in rds_rm_size

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465362 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva 
---
 net/rds/send.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/rds/send.c b/net/rds/send.c
index 028ab59..79d158b 100644
--- a/net/rds/send.c
+++ b/net/rds/send.c
@@ -902,6 +902,8 @@ static int rds_rm_size(struct msghdr *msg, int num_sgs)
 
case RDS_CMSG_ZCOPY_COOKIE:
zcopy_cookie = true;
+   /* fall through */
+
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_DEST:
case RDS_CMSG_RDMA_MAP:
cmsg_groups |= 2;
-- 
2.7.4