Hi Jan, On 01/09/2021 09:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
Commit 806448806264 ("xen/domain: Fix label position in domain_teardown()" has caused Coverity to report a _new_ supposedly un-annotated fall-through in a switch(). I find this (once again) puzzling; I'm having an increasingly hard time figuring what patterns the tool is actually after. I would have expected that the tool would either have spotted an issue also before this change, or not at all. Yet if it had spotted one before, the statistics report should have included an eliminated instance alongside the new one (because then the issue would simply have moved by a few lines).Hence the only thing I could guess is that the treatment of comments in macro expansions might be subtly different. Therefore try whether switching the comments to the still relatively new "fallthrough" pseudo keyword actually helps. Coverity-ID: 1490865 Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgr...@amazon.com>
--- If this doesn't help, I'm afraid I'm lost as to what Coverity means us to do to silence the reporting. --- a/xen/common/domain.c +++ b/xen/common/domain.c @@ -401,13 +401,13 @@ static int domain_teardown(struct domain */ #define PROGRESS(x) \ d->teardown.val = PROG_ ## x; \ - /* Fallthrough */ \ + fallthrough; \ case PROG_ ## x#define PROGRESS_VCPU(x) \d->teardown.val = PROG_vcpu_ ## x; \ d->teardown.vcpu = v; \ - /* Fallthrough */ \ + fallthrough; \ case PROG_vcpu_ ## x: \ v = d->teardown.vcpu
Cheers, -- Julien Grall
