On 18/02/16 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.02.16 at 13:26, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Coverity objects otherwise.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> index a05edc3..0bff7dd 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm.c
>> @@ -924,10 +924,15 @@ get_page_from_l1e(
>> {
>> case 0:
>> break;
>> +
>> case 1:
>> if ( is_hardware_domain(l1e_owner) )
>> + {
>> + /* Fallthrough. */
>> case -1:
>> return 0;
>> + }
>> + /* Fallthrough. */
>> default:
> This second fall-through is actually a bug (luckily noticable only
> on debug builds).
>
> I'll commit the patch suitably adjusted, albeit I have a hard time
> seeing how
>
> case 1:
> if ( is_hardware_domain(l1e_owner) )
> case -1:
>
> cannot be seen as obviously deliberate.
Many C programmers are not aware that it is even valid syntax.
The point of the MISSING_BREAK check is to second guess what the
programmer has actually written.
> Or did Coverity perhaps
> only complain about the second, indeed buggy one?
It only complained about the first. The second is a misaligned
unconditional return when considered in isolation.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
