Re: [PATCH] scsi/NCR5380: Avoid compiler warning when -Wimplicit-fallthrough is enabled

On 4/8/19 7:22 PM, Finn Thain wrote: > > It has been queued up by Martin and James on git.kernel.org. Apparently it > is to be pushed in the v5.2 merge window. > Awesome. Thanks -- Gustavo

Re: [PATCH] scsi/NCR5380: Avoid compiler warning when -Wimplicit-fallthrough is enabled

Hi all, Friendly ping: Who can take this? Thanks On 3/7/19 3:49 PM, Finn Thain wrote: > Adjust comments accordingly. > > Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva > Cc: Michael Schmitz > Signed-off-by: Finn Thain > --- > drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 8 > 1 file changed, 4 in

Re: [PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Add missing breaks in switch statements

On 2/27/19 8:37 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Gustavo, > >> Fix the following warnings by adding the proper missing breaks: >> >> drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c: In function >> ‘_base_display_OEMs_branding’: >> drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c:3548:4: warning: this statement may f

[PATCH v2] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through

is modified in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- Changes in v2: - Update commit log. - Move code comment after the default label and retain reason for fall-through in comm

Re: [PATCH] scsi: aacraid: Fix missing break in switch statement

On 2/27/19 8:33 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Gustavo, > >> Add missing break statement and fix identation issue. > > So much bad indentation in this driver. Tried various tab widths and it > is still all over the place. > > Anyway. After staring at the firmware header I have convinced m

[PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: Add missing breaks in switch statements

ult: ^~~ Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_base.c | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/m

[PATCH] scsi: aacraid: Fix missing break in switch statement

Add missing break statement and fix identation issue. This bug was found thanks to the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Fixes: 9cb62fa24e0d ("aacraid: Log firmware AIF messages") Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/aacraid

[PATCH] xen-scsiback: mark expected switch fall-through

expecting to find. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/xen/xen-scsiback.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/xen/xen-scsiback.c b/drivers/xen/xen-scsiback.c index

[PATCH] scsi: mptfusion: mark expected switch fall-through

what GCC is expecting to find. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c b/drivers/message

Re: [PATCH 37/41] scsi: st: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 1/10/19 2:24 PM, "Kai Mäkisara (Kolumbus)" wrote: On 10 Jan 2019, at 21.56, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Acked-by: Kai Mäkisara Thanks, Kai. -- Gustavo

Re: [PATCH 10/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_lport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 24/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_hbadisc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 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

Re: [PATCH 34/41] scsi: osst: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:07 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 35/41] scsi: ppa: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:07 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 33/41] scsi: osd: osd_initiator: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:07 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 06/41] scsi: aic7xxx: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:37 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 38/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_hipd: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:08 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 05/41] scsi: aic7xxx: aic79xx: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:36 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 07/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_iscsi: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:37 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 08/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_main: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:38 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 09/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcpim: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:38 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 12/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_ioc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 13/41] scsi: csiostor: csio_wr: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Martin: apparently, the only maintainers for this driver are you and James. Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks

Re: [PATCH 14/41] scsi: esas2r: esas2r_init: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 9:39 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 16/41] scsi: imm: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Martin: apparently, the only maintainers for this driver are you and James. Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:29 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases

Re: [PATCH 22/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_ct: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

Re: [PATCH 23/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_els: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114978 ("Mi

Re: [PATCH 26/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nvme: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

Re: [PATCH 27/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 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

Re: [PATCH 37/41] scsi: st: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:08 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

Re: [PATCH 39/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_nvram: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping (second one): Who can ack/review/take this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 12/19/18 6:08 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to

[PATCH] scsi: mvsas: use struct_size() in kzalloc()

foo) + sizeof(void *) * count, GFP_KERNEL); Instead of leaving these open-coded and prone to type mistakes, we can now use the new struct_size() helper: instance = kzalloc(struct_size(instance, entry, count), GFP_KERNEL); This code was detected with the help of Coccinelle. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A

[PATCH] scsi: advansys: use struct_size() in kzalloc()

foo) + sizeof(void *) * count, GFP_KERNEL); Instead of leaving these open-coded and prone to type mistakes, we can now use the new struct_size() helper: instance = kzalloc(struct_size(instance, entry, count), GFP_KERNEL); This code was detected with the help of Coccinelle. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A

[PATCH] scsi: smartpqi_init: fix boolean expression in pqi_device_remove_start

Fix boolean expression by using logical AND operator '&&' instead of bitwise operator '&'. This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle. Fixes: 1e46731efd9c ("scsi: smartpqi: check for null device pointers") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

[PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: mpt3sas_scsih: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1475400 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) di

Re: [PATCH 31/41] scsi: mpt3sas: mpt3sas_scsih: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi Suganath, On 12/19/18 10:19 PM, Suganath Prabu Subramani wrote: Hi Gustavo, This patch may not apply smoothly over 4.21/scsi-queue. Our previous patch for Aero had some changes in this switch case. Can you resend this patch with latest code base ? Okay. I'll send a separate patch. Thanks

Re: [PATCH 38/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_hipd: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114996 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 33/41] scsi: osd: osd_initiator: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 37/41] scsi: st: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114994 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 35/41] scsi: ppa: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114988 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 39/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_nvram: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:34 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 36/41] scsi: qla4xxx: ql4_os: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 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

Re: [PATCH 34/41] scsi: osst: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:33 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114983 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 32/41] scsi: myrb: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1465234 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 31/41] scsi: mpt3sas: mpt3sas_scsih: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1475400 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 16/41] scsi: imm: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:29 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 placed all the

Re: [PATCH 28/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_sli: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 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 "

Re: [PATCH 22/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_ct: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 18/41] scsi: isci: remote_device: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:30 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, a dash is added

Re: [PATCH 24/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_hbadisc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 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 "

Re: [PATCH 27/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:32 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 "

Re: [PATCH 23/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_els: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114978 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 25/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nportdisc: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 26/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nvme: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:31 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 20/41] scsi: isci: request: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:30 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, a dash is added

Re: [PATCH 17/41] scsi: isci: phy: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:29 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 703127 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 19/41] scsi: isci: remote_node_context: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:30 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, a dash is added

Re: [PATCH 14/41] scsi: esas2r: esas2r_init: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 13/41] scsi: csiostor: csio_wr: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056538 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 12/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_ioc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 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

Re: [PATCH 11/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_rport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that I replaced "!! fall through !!

Re: [PATCH 10/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_lport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 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

Re: [PATCH 09/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcpim: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that I replaced "Fall through !!!" wi

Re: [PATCH 08/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_main: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:27 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357387 ("Missing bre

Re: [PATCH 07/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_iscsi: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

Re: [PATCH 06/41] scsi: aic7xxx: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 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 some cases, I replaced "FALLTH

Re: [PATCH 05/41] scsi: aic7xxx: aic79xx: mark expected switch fall-through

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can ack or review this patch, please? Thanks -- Gustavo On 11/27/18 10:26 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 some cases, I replaced "FALLTH

Re: [PATCH 00/41] scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 12/18/18 9:45 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: If you haven't received feedback on a patch you should poke the relevant driver maintainer. Got it. Will do so. Thanks -- Gustavo

Re: [PATCH 33/41] scsi: osd: osd_initiator: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 12/18/18 11:13 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: On 28/11/18 06:32, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva ACK-by: Boaz Harrosh Thank you, Boaz. -- Gustavo

Re: [PATCH 00/41] scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

18 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, this patchset aims to mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. I reviewed case by case and concluded that each of them is an intentional fall-through. However, it doesn't hurt that the maint

[PATCH] scsi: mptfusion: Fix potential Spectre v1 vulnerabilities

eculation windows are large, the policy is to kill the speculation on the first load and not worry if it can be completed with a dependent load/store [1]. [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152449131114778&w=2 Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/m

Re: [PATCH 02/41] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi Michael, On 11/28/18 2:22 AM, Michael Schmitz wrote: I believe the 'if we get something weird' comment block relates to the default branch of the switch, _not_ the fall through from the case above (extended message received that we end up rejecting). Ordering the comments like you did just f

[PATCH 22/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_ct: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_ct.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_ct.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_ct.c index

[PATCH 26/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nvme: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c

[PATCH 27/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that, in this particular case, I replaced "Drop thru" with "fall through" annotations, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silv

[PATCH 38/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_hipd: mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114996 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_hipd.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) di

[PATCH 35/41] scsi: ppa: mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114988 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/ppa.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/

[PATCH 25/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_nportdisc: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nportdisc.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nportdisc.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc

[PATCH 16/41] scsi: imm: mark expected switch fall-throughs

in drivers/scsi/ppa.c. This makes it possible to place the "fall through" annotations at the bottom of each switch case, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/imm.c | 33 + 1 file changed, 17 inserti

[PATCH 20/41] scsi: isci: request: mark expected switch fall-through

hat GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/isci/request.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/request.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/request.c index 2f151708b59a..1b18cf55167e 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/isci/request.c +++

[PATCH 23/41] scsi: lpfc: lpfc_els: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114978 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_els.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git

[PATCH 18/41] scsi: isci: remote_device: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

hat GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/isci/remote_device.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/isci/remote_device.c b/drivers/scsi/isci/remote_device.c index cc51f38b116d..9d29edb9f590 100644 --- a/drivers

[PATCH 04/41] scsi: aacraid: linit: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c b/drivers/scsi/aacraid/linit.c index

[PATCH 13/41] scsi: csiostor: csio_wr: mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056538 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_wr.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) di

[PATCH 14/41] scsi: esas2r: esas2r_init: mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_init.c b

[PATCH 05/41] scsi: aic7xxx: aic79xx: mark expected switch fall-through

GCC is expecting to find. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114961 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114962 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114963 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114964 ("Missing break in switch") S

[PATCH 15/41] scsi: hpsa: mark expected switch fall-throughs

eak in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1195466 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357338 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/hpsa.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c b/dr

[PATCH 06/41] scsi: aic7xxx: mark expected switch fall-throughs

GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_core.c | 12 +--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_core.c b/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_core.c index f3362f4ab16e..d4a7263e4b8f 10064

[PATCH 00/41] scsi: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

rough=] ahc_dma_tag_destroy(ahc, scb_data->sg_dmat); ^~~ drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_core.c:4923:2: note: here case 6: ^~~~ Thanks! Gustavo A. R. Silva (41): scsi: BusLogic: mark expected switch fall-through scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected swi

[PATCH 09/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcpim: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcpim.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcpim.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcpim.c index 2c85f5b1f9c1..7e996bcf026c 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcpim.c +++

[PATCH 08/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_main: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357387 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_main.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) di

[PATCH 10/41] scsi: bfa: bfa_fcs_lport: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that, in this particular case, I replaced "!!! fall through !!!" with a "fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 02/41] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through

ing to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c index 01c23d27f290..12073e52a0eb 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c

[PATCH 03/41] scsi: aacraid: aachba: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Also, a break statement is properly aligned. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/aacraid/aachba.c | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a

[PATCH 01/41] scsi: BusLogic: mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056537 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/BusLogic.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/dr

[PATCH 41/41] scsi: xen-scsifront: mark expected switch fall-through

uot;, which contains the "fall through" annotation at the beginnig of the code comment, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/xen-scsifront.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/xen-scsifron

[PATCH 40/41] scsi: ufs: ufshcd: mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1087954 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git

[PATCH 37/41] scsi: st: mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114994 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114995 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/s

[PATCH 39/41] scsi: sym53c8xx_2: sym_nvram: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/sym_nvram.c b/drivers/scsi

  1   2   >