> > > Hi Ariel. > > > > > > I wrote a little checkpatch script to look for missing > > > switch/case breaks. > > > > > > http://www.kernelhub.org/?msg=379933&p=2 > > > > > > There are _many_ instances of case blocks in sriov.c > > > that could be missing breaks as they use fall-throughs. > > > > > > It would be good if these are actually intended to be > > > fall-throughs to add a /* fall-through */ comment between > > > each case block. > > > > > Hi Joe, > > Hi Yuval. > > > The `vfop' part of the code contains a lot of usage of the > `bnx2x_vfop_finalize()', > > which either goto or return at the end of almost every case. > > "Normal" analysis tools/scripts fail to recognize them as valid case > breaks. > > > > Adding `fallthrough' comments would make little sense, as this is not the > real > > behavior; Perhaps we need some alternative comment? (something in the > line > > of `macro case break') > > No idea. It's certainly an ugly macro. >
True. > This does have a fallthrough path though when > (rc == 0 && next == VFOP_VERIFY_PEND) so This is a very rare path - there's exactly one place in the bnx2x code Where `next == VFOP_VERIFY_PEND' (also notice this path prints an error, so this is obviously not the expected behaviour). > maybe there should be a break after most all > uses of this macro anyway. When next is Won't some static code analysis tools regard such `break' calls as unreachable code? > VFOP_VERIFY_PEND, then a "fall-through" comment > would be appropriate. > > cheers, Joe Thanks, Yuval -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/