On 10/09/24 19:41, Federico Serafini wrote:
On 10/09/24 16:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.09.2024 16:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.09.2024 12:09, Federico Serafini wrote:
Address violations of MISRA C:2012 Rule 16.3:
"An unconditional `break' statement shall terminate every
switch-clause".
Since in our interpretation "return" is okay too, why is not
sufficient to
simply ...
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
@@ -170,8 +170,10 @@ static int __init cf_check
parse_phantom_dev(const char *str)
{
case 1: case 2: case 4:
if ( *s )
- default:
return -EINVAL;
+ break;
... insert just this one line here?
I guess the problem is with the description: It's un-annotated
fall-through
in this case, not so much the lack of a break (or alike).
Jan
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
}
phantom_devs[nr_phantom_devs++] = phantom;
Do you prefer this?
case 1: case 2: case 4:
if ( *s )
fallthrough;
break;
default:
return -EINVAL;
Oh no, sorry,
this does not make sense.
--
Federico Serafini, M.Sc.
Software Engineer, BUGSENG (http://bugseng.com)
