From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smack: Mark expected switch fall-through
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:55:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <da15be5c-6c5f-3002-6562-50c60cd44263@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180801223854.GA14499@embeddedor.com>
On 8/1/2018 3:38 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "No break" with a
> proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
> to find.
Holy bikeshedding, Batman! For decades I've seen "no break" as
the proper way to warn that the lack of a "break;" is intentional.
I suppose that "Fall through" makes just as much sense. Grumble.
> Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Sure, I'll take this for 4.20 as my 4.19 changes are complete
and there doesn't seem to be special urgency.
> ---
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> index ad45761..a307b00 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> @@ -3739,7 +3739,7 @@ static void smack_d_instantiate(struct dentry *opt_dentry, struct inode *inode)
> */
> final = &smack_known_star;
> /*
> - * No break.
> + * Fall through.
> *
> * If a smack value has been set we want to use it,
> * but since tmpfs isn't giving us the opportunity
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: casey@schaufler-ca.com (Casey Schaufler)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] Smack: Mark expected switch fall-through
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:55:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <da15be5c-6c5f-3002-6562-50c60cd44263@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180801223854.GA14499@embeddedor.com>
On 8/1/2018 3:38 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "No break" with a
> proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
> to find.
Holy bikeshedding, Batman! For decades I've seen "no break" as
the proper way to warn that the lack of a "break;" is intentional.
I suppose that "Fall through" makes just as much sense. Grumble.
> Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Sure, I'll take this for 4.20 as my 4.19 changes are complete
and there doesn't seem to be special urgency.
> ---
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> index ad45761..a307b00 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> @@ -3739,7 +3739,7 @@ static void smack_d_instantiate(struct dentry *opt_dentry, struct inode *inode)
> */
> final = &smack_known_star;
> /*
> - * No break.
> + * Fall through.
> *
> * If a smack value has been set we want to use it,
> * but since tmpfs isn't giving us the opportunity
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-01 22:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-01 22:38 [PATCH] Smack: Mark expected switch fall-through Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-01 22:38 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-08-01 22:55 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2018-08-01 22:55 ` Casey Schaufler
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=da15be5c-6c5f-3002-6562-50c60cd44263@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=serge@hallyn.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.