* [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2018-10-08 17:23 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2018-10-08 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler
Cc: linux-iio, linux-kernel, Gustavo A. R. Silva
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
index 063e89e..d609654 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
@@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
switch (i) {
case X:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
+ /* fall through */
case Y:
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
+ /* fall through */
case Z:
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
}
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-10-08 17:23 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-12 21:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2018-10-08 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen, Peter Meerwald-Stadler,
linux-iio, linux-kernel, Gwendal Grignou, Thierry Escande
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Hi,
I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement
in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch
and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps
I'm missing something!
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> switch (i) {
> case X:
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> + /* fall through */
> case Y:
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> + /* fall through */
> case Z:
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2019-02-12 21:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-12 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron
Cc: Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen, Peter Meerwald-Stadler,
linux-iio, linux-kernel, Gwendal Grignou, Thierry Escande
Hi guys,
I was about to submit this patch again, then I realized I had
sent it before.
So, this is a friendly ping.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On 10/8/18 3:30 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:23:32 +0200
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> Hi,
>
> I'll be honest I'm lost on what the intent of this code actually is...
>
> Gwendal - why do we have a loop with this odd switch statement
> in it. Superficially I think we might as well drop the switch
> and pull those assignments out of the loop. However, perhaps
> I'm missing something!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
>> ---
>> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> switch (i) {
>> case X:
>> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
>> + /* fall through */
>> case Y:
>> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
>> + /* fall through */
>> case Z:
>> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2018-10-08 17:23 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-20 18:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-02-20 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, LKML
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> switch (i) {
> case X:
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> + /* fall through */
> case Y:
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> + /* fall through */
> case Z:
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> }
Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is
stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same:
X: set X, Y, and Z
Y: set Y and Z
Z: set Z
result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong.
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
@ 2019-02-20 18:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-20 18:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2019-02-20 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook
Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, LKML, Gwendal Grignou
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:20:39 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> >
> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
> > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > index 063e89e..d609654 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
> > @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > switch (i) {
> > case X:
> > ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> > + /* fall through */
> > case Y:
> > ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> > + /* fall through */
> > case Z:
> > ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
> > }
>
> Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is
> stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same:
>
> X: set X, Y, and Z
> Y: set Y and Z
> Z: set Z
>
> result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong.
>
Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
Jonathan
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-20 18:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
@ 2019-02-20 18:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-21 1:23 ` Kees Cook
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-20 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Cameron, Kees Cook
Cc: Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen, Peter Meerwald-Stadler,
linux-iio, LKML, Gwendal Grignou
On 2/20/19 12:34 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:20:39 -0800
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
>> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch")
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>>> index 063e89e..d609654 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c
>>> @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> switch (i) {
>>> case X:
>>> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> case Y:
>>> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> case Z:
>>> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>>> }
>>
>> Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is
>> stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same:
>>
>> X: set X, Y, and Z
>> Y: set Y and Z
>> Z: set Z
>>
>> result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong.
>>
Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation,
and the code can be rewritten as follows:
ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID)
state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1;
else
state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
>
> Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
> back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
>
We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
Thanks
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-20 18:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-21 1:23 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-21 1:48 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2019-02-21 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, LKML, Gwendal Grignou
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:47 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation,
> and the code can be rewritten as follows:
>
> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>
> if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID)
> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1;
> else
> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
Actually, should be an unconditional "state->sign[Y] = 1", but
otherwise, yes. Can you send that patch?
> > Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
> > back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
>
> We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
I've looked at this enough. I'm happy to Ack it, if that helps. :)
--
Kees Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-21 1:23 ` Kees Cook
@ 2019-02-21 1:48 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-21 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kees Cook
Cc: Jonathan Cameron, Hartmut Knaack, Lars-Peter Clausen,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler, linux-iio, LKML, Gwendal Grignou
On 2/20/19 7:23 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:47 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>> Yeah. Actually, we can even take the switch and for out of the equation,
>> and the code can be rewritten as follows:
>>
>> ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y;
>> ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X;
>> ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z;
>>
>> if (state->sensor_num == MOTIONSENSE_LOC_LID)
>> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Z] = -1;
>> else
>> state->sign[X] = state->sign[Y] = state->sign[Z] = 1;
>
> Actually, should be an unconditional "state->sign[Y] = 1", but
You're right. Team work!
> otherwise, yes. Can you send that patch?
>
Sure thing.
>
>>> Agreed, it's 'novel'. Waiting for Gwendal or someone else to come
>>> back and check it wasn't meant to be doing something else.
>>
>> We've been waiting 5 months for Gwendal. :/
>
> I've looked at this enough. I'm happy to Ack it, if that helps. :)
>
Awesome. :)
Thanks
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-21 1:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-08 17:23 [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
2018-10-08 20:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-12 21:50 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-20 18:20 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-20 18:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2019-02-20 18:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-02-21 1:23 ` Kees Cook
2019-02-21 1:48 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).