On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:05 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 09:35, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 06:29:51PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>> These comments are used by static code analysis tools and in code reviews
>>> to avoid false warnings because of missing break statements.
>>>
>>> The case statements handled here were reported by coverity.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
>>> ---
>>> hw/pcnet.c | 1 +
>>> json-lexer.c | 1 +
>>> qemu-option.c | 4 ++++
>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> This reminds me of another questionable fall-through:
>>
>> bt-host.c:bt_host_read():
>>
>> while (s->len --)
>> switch (*pkt ++) {
>> ...
>> case HCI_SCODATA_PKT:
>> if (s->len < 3)
>> goto bad_pkt;
>>
>> pktlen = MIN(pkt[2] + 3, s->len);
>> s->len -= pktlen;
>> pkt += pktlen;
>> <--- fall-through or not?
>> default:
>> bad_pkt:
>> fprintf(stderr, "qemu: bad HCI packet type %02x\n", pkt[-1]);
>> }
>>
>> It seems the code will skip HCI_SCODATA_PKT and report a warning (although
>> type
>> pkt[-1] will be incorrect). Any thoughts?
>
> Yes, definitely there's a break missing. Bluetooth SCO links are like
> USB Isochronous, so not really tested because they're only used by
> streaming devices.
Thanks for explaining. We can address this in a separate patch, sorry
for hijacking this thread :).
Stefan Weil: Your patch looks good.
Stefan
