On 09.06.2021 14:49, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 09/06/2021 11:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >> The CIDs below are all for the PV side of things, but also take care of >> the HVM side. >> >> Coverity-ID: 1485896, 1485901, 1485906, 1485910, 1485911, >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> --- >> Let's see whether Coverity actually understands the (relatively) new >> pseudo-keyword. > > This is exceedingly disappointing. Coverity used to have the only > sensible rule for not causing spurious fallthrough warnings, but this > has apparently regressed. > > Coverity works on the AST, so ought to be after GCC has interpreted > __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) if applicable. > > However, I doubt it will work in the fallback case, because #define > fallthrough looks dubious. To trigger the older logic, the /* > fallthrough */ comment needs to be the final thing before the next case > label, and it isn't with the added semicolon. > > Given that this pseudo-keyword is restricted to the SMMU driver for now, > we don't actually know if Coverity likes it or not.
When it was introduced, I did specifically ask whether it pleases Coverity. I was told it would, and I had no proof to the contrary, so I had to accept what I was told. My asking at the time was precisely to avoid having to have two forms of annotation on every single legitimate / intentional fall-through case. Jan
