On 10.09.2024 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.09.2024 12:09, Federico Serafini wrote:
>> Address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3:
>> "An unconditional `break' statement shall terminate every
>> switch-clause".
>
> Since in our interpretation "return" is okay too, why is not sufficient to
> simply ...
>
>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
>> @@ -170,8 +170,10 @@ static int __init cf_check parse_phantom_dev(const char
>> *str)
>> {
>> case 1: case 2: case 4:
>> if ( *s )
>> - default:
>> return -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>
> ... insert just this one line here?
I guess the problem is with the description: It's un-annotated fall-through
in this case, not so much the lack of a break (or alike).
Jan
>> + default:
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> phantom_devs[nr_phantom_devs++] = phantom;
>
