Address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3: "An unconditional `break' statement shall terminate every switch-clause".
No functional change. Signed-off-by: Federico Serafini <federico.seraf...@bugseng.com> --- Changes from v2: - simply break without returning X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE. As pointed out by Jan, these functions only return X86EMUL_OKAY but: https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-09/msg00727.html Do you have any comments? --- xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c index fbe710ab92..5bb4444ce2 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/msix.c @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ static int adjacent_read(const struct domain *d, const struct vpci_msix *msix, default: ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); + break; } spin_unlock(&vpci->lock); @@ -512,6 +513,7 @@ static int adjacent_write(const struct domain *d, const struct vpci_msix *msix, default: ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); + break; } spin_unlock(&vpci->lock); -- 2.43.0
