From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 14:32:30 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <193a8c9d-2af4-150a-c9fc-3113bcc27e4d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1903011143550.8@nippy.intranet>
Finn's version looks fine to me.
Cheers,
Michael
On 1/03/19 2:16 PM, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
>> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
> This switch case is already marked. So I think the patch description
> should state that this patch is actually a workaround for a gcc deficiency
> which prevents it from locating the marker.
>
>> This patch fixes the following warning:
>>
>> In file included from drivers/scsi/dmx3191d.c:48:
>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c: In function ?NCR5380_information_transfer?:
>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c:1933:9: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> if (!hostdata->connected)
>> ^
>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c:1937:5: note: here
>> default:
>> ^~~~~~~
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comment is modified
>> in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Update commit log.
>> - Move code comment after the default label and
>> retain reason for fall-through in comment as
>> requested by Michael Schmitz.
>>
>> drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 9 ++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>> index 01c23d27f290..985d1c053578 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
>> @@ -1933,13 +1933,12 @@ static void NCR5380_information_transfer(struct Scsi_Host *instance)
>> if (!hostdata->connected)
>> return;
>>
>> - /* Fall through to reject message */
>> -
>> + /* Fall through - to reject message */
> This new hyphen is wrong and harms readability for humans.
>
> I did confirm that gcc can be appeased by the use of a hyphen but not by
> correct grammar such as "Fall through to reject message" or "Fall through.
> Reject message."
>
>> + default:
>> /*
>> - * If we get something weird that we aren't expecting,
>> - * reject it.
>> + * If we get something weird that we
>> + * aren't expecting, reject it.
> This reformatting isn't relevant to this patch. The comments can be
> improved however (see below).
>
>> */
>> - default:
> Moving the 'default' keyword closer to the 'fall through' comment makes
> sense to me -- I could understand if gcc had simple, unambiguous rules for
> annotations.
>
> Do compilers and static analysers agree as to what a correctly annotated
> switch label should look like? If not, we would have to try to mangle code
> and comments in such a way that might satisfy all of the failings in all
> of the tools.
>
>> if (tmp == EXTENDED_MESSAGE)
>> scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, cmd,
>> "rejecting unknown extended message code %02x, length %d\n",
>>
> Here's an alternative patch, which has the virtue that a simple heuristic
> will work. This patch does not require that other static analysis tools
> will follow gcc's weird rules about hyphens. (I assume they don't but I
> didn't check.)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
> index 7fed9bb72784..fe0535affc14 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
> @@ -1932,13 +1932,13 @@ static void NCR5380_information_transfer(struct Scsi_Host *instance)
> if (!hostdata->connected)
> return;
>
> - /* Fall through to reject message */
> -
> + /* Reject message */
> + /* Fall through */
> + default:
> /*
> * If we get something weird that we aren't expecting,
> - * reject it.
> + * log it.
> */
> - default:
> if (tmp == EXTENDED_MESSAGE)
> scmd_printk(KERN_INFO, cmd,
> "rejecting unknown extended message code %02x, length %d\n",
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-01 1:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-28 20:27 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-03-01 1:16 ` Finn Thain
2019-03-01 1:32 ` Michael Schmitz [this message]
2019-03-06 17:39 ` Martin K. Petersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=193a8c9d-2af4-150a-c9fc-3113bcc27e4d@gmail.com \
--to=schmitzmic@gmail.com \
--cc=fthain@telegraphics.com.au \
--cc=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome