[PATCH] drivers: block: Remove unnecessary cast

This issue was detected using Coccinelle and the following semantic patch: @@ expression * e; expression arg1, arg2; type T; @@ - e = (T *) + e = kmalloc(arg1, arg2); Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/block/cciss_scsi.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions

Re: [PATCH] drivers: block: Remove unnecessary cast

Quoting Greg KH : On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:41:05PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: This issue was detected using Coccinelle and the following semantic patch: @@ expression * e; expression arg1, arg2; type T; @@ - e = (T *) + e = kmalloc(arg1, arg2); Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

[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 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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

[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

[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: 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: 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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

[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

[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: 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] 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

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 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: 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

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/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

[PATCH] scsi: remove useless variable assignment

Remove both variable assignments once the value stored in variable _reqlen_ is overwritten at some point either by line 2321: reqlen = mptr - msg; or by line 2330: reqlen = 12; Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1226930 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1226931 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi

[PATCH] scsi: ipr: remove unnecessary variable assignments and the variable itself

Remove unnecessary variable assignments, the variable itself and refactor the code. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1227034 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/ipr.c | 12 +--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ipr.c b/drivers/scsi/ipr.c

[PATCH] scsi: osst: remove useless variable assignments in osst_int_ioctl()

Value assigned to variable blkno at lines 4123:if (blkno >= 0) blkno += arg; and 4127:if (blkno >= 0) blkno -= arg; is overwritten at line 4131:blkno = STps->drv_block; before it can be used. This makes such variable assignments useless. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397685 Signed-off-by:

[PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas: remove unnecessary statics

26910 drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.o after: text data bss dec hex filename 126292 302401152 157684 267f4 drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.o Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions

[PATCH] scsi: mpt3sas_scsih: remove unnecessary statics

1152 157684 267f4 drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.o Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c b/drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c index 2

[PATCH] scsi: pmcraid: fix duplicated code for different branches

Refactor code in order to avoid identical code for different branches. This issue was detected with the help of Coccinelle. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- This code was tested by compilation only. drivers/scsi/pmcraid.c | 7 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) diff

[PATCH] scsi: lpfc: remove useless code in lpfc_sli4_bsg_link_diag_test

Remove variable assignments. The value stored in local variable _rc_ is overwritten at line 2448:rc = lpfc_sli4_bsg_set_link_diag_state(phba, 0); before it can be used. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1226935 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- This issue was detected by Coverity and it was tested by

Re: [PATCH] scsi: lpfc: remove useless code in lpfc_sli4_bsg_link_diag_test

help. :) -- Gustavo A. R. Silva

[PATCH] scsi: mark expected switch fall-throughs

ses-Coverity-ID: 114984 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114985 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114988 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114994 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114995 (&

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

en; Adaptec OEM Raid > Solutions; Willem Riede; Kai Mäkisara > *Cc:* esc.storage...@microsemi.com; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; > linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; osst-us...@lists.sourceforge.net; Gustavo A. R. > Silva > *Subject:* [PATCH] scsi: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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

-Coverity-ID: 114968 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114969 ("Missing break in switch") 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/a

[PATCH] scsi: aic94xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs

eak in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114991 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114992 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/aic94xx/aic94xx_scb.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/

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

Hi Martin, On 10/11/18 4:47 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Hi Gustavo, > >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. > > I'm not entirely convinced that all these identified fall through cases > are intentional. From a qu

[PATCH] scsi: ips: fix missing break in switch

Add missing break statement in order to prevent the code from falling through to case TEST_UNIT_READY. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357338 ("Missing break in switch") Suggested-by: Martin K. Petersen Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/ips.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1

[PATCH v2] scsi: mark expected switch fall-throughs

ses-Coverity-ID: 114985 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114988 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114994 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114995 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silv

[PATCH] scsi: lpfc: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

itch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1271175 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1129237 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1357437 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_ct.c| 2 +

[PATCH] scsi: bfa: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

eak in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744901 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 146155 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcpim.c | 6 +++--- drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_lport.c |

Re: [PATCH] scsi: aic94xx: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 10/17/18 3:55 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. > > Applied to 4.20/scsi-queue. > Thank you, Martin. -- Gustavo

[PATCH] scsi: hisi_sas: Fix NULL pointer dereference

timeout for SMP/internal IO") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_main.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_main.c b/drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_main.c index 2e5eaf1..e3f7c7b 100644 --- a/driv

Re: [PATCH] scsi: hisi_sas: Fix NULL pointer dereference

Hi, I just found another instance of this same issue at line 1053. Please, drop this patch and I'll send v2 addressing both instances, shortly. Thanks -- Gustavo On 10/18/18 6:41 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > There is a NULL pointer dereference in case *slot* happens to > be N

[PATCH v2] scsi: hisi_sas: Fix NULL pointer dereference

quot;) Fixes: 584f53fe5f52 ("scsi: hisi_sas: Fix the race between IO completion and timeout for SMP/internal IO") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- Changes in v2: - Fix another instance of the same issue at line 1053. - Update commit log. drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/hisi_sas_main.c | 8 +

Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: hisi_sas: Fix NULL pointer dereference

On 10/20/18 12:28 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Gustavo, > >> There is a NULL pointer dereference in case *slot* happens to >> be NULL at lines 1053 and 1878: >> >> struct hisi_sas_cq *cq = >> &hisi_hba->cq[slot->dlvry_queue]; >> >> Notice that *slot* is being NULL checked at lines 10

[PATCH 07/41] scsi: be2iscsi: be_iscsi: 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/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi/be_iscsi.c b/drivers/scsi/be2iscsi

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

-Coverity-ID: 146155 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c | 9 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c b/drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_ioc.c index 16d3aeb0e572..32b24e51cce6 100644 --

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

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744899 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744900 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 744901 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/bfa/bfa_fcs_rport.c | 19 +++

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

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 703127 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- drivers/scsi/isci/phy.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/dr

  1   2   >