| Message ID | 20190329233850.29630-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Jeff Kirsher |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/6] igb: mark expected switch fall-through | expand |
> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org] On > Behalf Of Jeff Kirsher > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 4:39 PM > To: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 1/6] igb: mark expected switch fall-through > > From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch fixes the following warning: > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c: In function ‘__igb_notify_dca’: > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6694:6: warning: this statement > may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > if (dca_add_requester(dev) == 0) { > ^ > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6701:2: note: here > case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: > ^~~~ > > 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> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > Tested-by: Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>
Hi Jeff, I just wanted to check if this series has already been applied somewhere. Thanks -- Gustavo On 3/29/19 6:38 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch fixes the following warning: > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c: In function ‘__igb_notify_dca’: > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6694:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > if (dca_add_requester(dev) == 0) { > ^ > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6701:2: note: here > case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: > ^~~~ > > 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> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > index 834e879e1d57..e8042b0254bc 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > @@ -6701,7 +6701,7 @@ static int __igb_notify_dca(struct device *dev, void *data) > igb_setup_dca(adapter); > break; > } > - /* Fall Through since DCA is disabled. */ > + /* Fall Through - since DCA is disabled. */ > case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: > if (adapter->flags & IGB_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED) { > /* without this a class_device is left >
Hi Jeff, I wonder if there is any chance for this series to be queued up for 5.2-rc1. Thanks -- Gustavo On 4/24/19 11:42 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I just wanted to check if this series has already been applied somewhere. > > Thanks > -- > Gustavo > > On 3/29/19 6:38 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> >> >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> This patch fixes the following warning: >> >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c: In function ‘__igb_notify_dca’: >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6694:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] >> if (dca_add_requester(dev) == 0) { >> ^ >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6701:2: note: here >> case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: >> ^~~~ >> >> 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> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c >> index 834e879e1d57..e8042b0254bc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c >> @@ -6701,7 +6701,7 @@ static int __igb_notify_dca(struct device *dev, void *data) >> igb_setup_dca(adapter); >> break; >> } >> - /* Fall Through since DCA is disabled. */ >> + /* Fall Through - since DCA is disabled. */ >> case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: >> if (adapter->flags & IGB_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED) { >> /* without this a class_device is left >> > _______________________________________________ > Intel-wired-lan mailing list > Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org > https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan >
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 12:59 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > I wonder if there is any chance for this series to be queued up for > 5.2-rc1. Possibly, but since the nature of your patch is to just modify a code comment because the tools used to check are not sophisticated enough to realize the code comment already clearly states "Fall through ...", I do not feel this is *really* necessary to get into 'net'. If I have other 'fixes' in my queue that need to get pushed, I may add this change to the series. I have not decided yet whether it warrants being in 'net' or could wait till 'net-next'. > > On 4/24/19 11:42 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > > > I just wanted to check if this series has already been applied > > somewhere. > > > > Thanks > > -- > > Gustavo > > > > On 3/29/19 6:38 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > > > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > > > cases > > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > > > This patch fixes the following warning: > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c: In function > > > ‘__igb_notify_dca’: > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6694:6: warning: this > > > statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > if (dca_add_requester(dev) == 0) { > > > ^ > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c:6701:2: note: here > > > case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: > > > ^~~~ > > > > > > 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> > > > --- > > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > > index 834e879e1d57..e8042b0254bc 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c > > > @@ -6701,7 +6701,7 @@ static int __igb_notify_dca(struct device > > > *dev, void *data) > > > igb_setup_dca(adapter); > > > break; > > > } > > > - /* Fall Through since DCA is disabled. */ > > > + /* Fall Through - since DCA is disabled. */ > > > case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: > > > if (adapter->flags & IGB_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED) { > > > /* without this a class_device is left > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Intel-wired-lan mailing list > > Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org > > https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan > >
Jeff, On 5/16/19 2:17 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 12:59 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> I wonder if there is any chance for this series to be queued up for >> 5.2-rc1. > > Possibly, but since the nature of your patch is to just modify a code > comment because the tools used to check are not sophisticated enough to > realize the code comment already clearly states "Fall through ...", I > do not feel this is *really* necessary to get into 'net'. If I have > other 'fixes' in my queue that need to get pushed, I may add this > change to the series. I have not decided yet whether it warrants being > in 'net' or could wait till 'net-next'. > I get it, net-next is fine. However, I noticed this series is still in net-next/dev-queue. There are only 6 of these fall-through warnings left in linux-next. Half of them are fixed by this series. We want to add -Wimplicit-fallthrough to the Makefile and start testing it in linux-next. And it'd be of great help if you can move this series to your net-next/master, so it can be merged into linux-next and be part of the test. :) Thanks! -- Gustavo
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c index 834e879e1d57..e8042b0254bc 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c @@ -6701,7 +6701,7 @@ static int __igb_notify_dca(struct device *dev, void *data) igb_setup_dca(adapter); break; } - /* Fall Through since DCA is disabled. */ + /* Fall Through - since DCA is disabled. */ case DCA_PROVIDER_REMOVE: if (adapter->flags & IGB_FLAG_DCA_ENABLED) { /* without this a class_device is left