On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 at 19:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Good news, Coverity Scan resumed putting information in the email
> report. Bad news, 20 new issues now that next has been merged.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <scan-ad...@coverity.com>
> Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 5:39 PM
> Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for Das U-Boot
> To: <tom.r...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to *Das U-Boot*
> found with Coverity Scan.
>
> - *New Defects Found:* 20
> - 6 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in
> the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan.
> - *Defects Shown:* Showing 20 of 20 defect(s)
>
> Defect Details
>
[...]
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 569481: Control flow issues (MISSING_BREAK)
> /lib/lmb.c: 763 in lmb_alloc_mem()
> 757 return 0;
> 758
> 759 if (!addr)
> 760 return -EINVAL;
> 761
> 762 switch (type) {
> >>> CID 569481: Control flow issues (MISSING_BREAK)
> >>> The case for value "LMB_MEM_ALLOC_ANY" is not terminated by a "break"
> >>> statement.
The missing break is on purpose, so this is not an issue. Nonetheless,
Heinrich has sent a patch [1] to put a fallthrough statement here.
Thanks.
-sughosh
[1] -
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20250708121251.83980-1-heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com/
> 763 case LMB_MEM_ALLOC_ANY:
> 764 *addr = LMB_ALLOC_ANYWHERE;
> 765 case LMB_MEM_ALLOC_MAX:
> 766 ret = _lmb_alloc_base(size, align, addr, flags);
> 767 break;
> 768 case LMB_MEM_ALLOC_ADDR:
>
>
>
> View Defects in Coverity Scan
> <https://scan.coverity.com/projects/das-u-boot?tab=overview>
>
> Best regards,
>
> The Coverity Scan Admin Team
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> --
> Tom
