Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 2/14/19 5:07 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function âpcan_usb_decode_errorâ:
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>>     if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>>>>        ^
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>>>>    case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>>>>    ^~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/net/can/at91_can.c                    | 6 ++++--
>>>>>
>>>>> For this one:
>>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I though I had a dÃjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't intentional.
>>
>>>> Dave:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>>>>   drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>   drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c                 | 3 ++-
>>>>>>   drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c       | 2 +-
>>>>>>   4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>>>>>> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c
>>>>>> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>>>>>>   				CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING :
>>>>>>   				CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING;
>>>>>>   		}
>>>>>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
>>>>>> +		/* fall through */
>>>>>> +	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>>>>   		/*
>>>>>>   		 * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING
>>>>>>   		 * to  : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF
>>>>>> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev,
>>>>>>   		netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n");
>>>>>>   		cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT;
>>>>>>   		cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE;
>>>>>> -	case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:	/* fallthrough */
>>>
>>> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>>
>> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>>
>>> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
>>> tested with gcc 8.2).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case.  Notice that the
>> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>>
> 
> Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
> 

Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.

--
Gustavo