| Message ID | 20150407.230542.359453916233129441.davem@davemloft.net |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream |
| Delegated to: | Pablo Neira |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:05:42PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > More recent GCC warns about two kinds of switch statement uses: > > 1) Switching on an enumeration, but not having an explicit case > statement for all members of the enumeration. To show the > compiler this is intentional, we simply add a default case > with nothing more than a break statement. > > 2) Switching on a boolean value. I think this warning is dumb > but nevertheless you get it wholesale with -Wswitch. > > This patch cures all such warnings in netfilter. > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:46:14 +0200 > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:05:42PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> >> More recent GCC warns about two kinds of switch statement uses: >> >> 1) Switching on an enumeration, but not having an explicit case >> statement for all members of the enumeration. To show the >> compiler this is intentional, we simply add a default case >> with nothing more than a break statement. >> >> 2) Switching on a boolean value. I think this warning is dumb >> but nevertheless you get it wholesale with -Wswitch. >> >> This patch cures all such warnings in netfilter. >> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> Ok I tossed this into net-next, thanks for reviewing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/bridge/netfilter/nft_reject_bridge.c b/net/bridge/netfilter/nft_reject_bridge.c index 54a2fdf..ae8141f 100644 --- a/net/bridge/netfilter/nft_reject_bridge.c +++ b/net/bridge/netfilter/nft_reject_bridge.c @@ -371,6 +371,8 @@ static int nft_reject_bridge_dump(struct sk_buff *skb, if (nla_put_u8(skb, NFTA_REJECT_ICMP_CODE, priv->icmp_code)) goto nla_put_failure; break; + default: + break; } return 0; diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv4.c index 16a5d4d..a7621fa 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv4.c +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv4.c @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ static void nft_reject_ipv4_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST: nf_send_reset(pkt->skb, pkt->ops->hooknum); break; + default: + break; } data[NFT_REG_VERDICT].verdict = NF_DROP; diff --git a/net/ipv6/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv6.c b/net/ipv6/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv6.c index f732859..71c7be5 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv6.c +++ b/net/ipv6/netfilter/nft_reject_ipv6.c @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ static void nft_reject_ipv6_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, case NFT_REJECT_TCP_RST: nf_send_reset6(net, pkt->skb, pkt->ops->hooknum); break; + default: + break; } data[NFT_REG_VERDICT].verdict = NF_DROP; diff --git a/net/netfilter/nft_compat.c b/net/netfilter/nft_compat.c index 589b848..bdefefe 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nft_compat.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nft_compat.c @@ -321,11 +321,11 @@ static void nft_match_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, return; } - switch(ret) { - case true: + switch (ret ? 1 : 0) { + case 1: data[NFT_REG_VERDICT].verdict = NFT_CONTINUE; break; - case false: + case 0: data[NFT_REG_VERDICT].verdict = NFT_BREAK; break; } diff --git a/net/netfilter/nft_ct.c b/net/netfilter/nft_ct.c index cc56030..18d520e 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nft_ct.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nft_ct.c @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ static void nft_ct_get_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, state = NF_CT_STATE_BIT(ctinfo); dest->data[0] = state; return; + default: + break; } if (ct == NULL) @@ -117,6 +119,8 @@ static void nft_ct_get_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, return; } #endif + default: + break; } tuple = &ct->tuplehash[priv->dir].tuple; @@ -141,6 +145,8 @@ static void nft_ct_get_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, case NFT_CT_PROTO_DST: dest->data[0] = (__force __u16)tuple->dst.u.all; return; + default: + break; } return; err: @@ -172,6 +178,8 @@ static void nft_ct_set_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr, } break; #endif + default: + break; } }
More recent GCC warns about two kinds of switch statement uses: 1) Switching on an enumeration, but not having an explicit case statement for all members of the enumeration. To show the compiler this is intentional, we simply add a default case with nothing more than a break statement. 2) Switching on a boolean value. I think this warning is dumb but nevertheless you get it wholesale with -Wswitch. This patch cures all such warnings in netfilter. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html