On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397962 ("Missing break in switch") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > index 063e89e..d609654 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c > @@ -385,8 +385,10 @@ static int cros_ec_accel_legacy_probe(struct > platform_device *pdev) > switch (i) { > case X: > ec_accel_channels[X].scan_index = Y; > + /* fall through */ > case Y: > ec_accel_channels[Y].scan_index = X; > + /* fall through */ > case Z: > ec_accel_channels[Z].scan_index = Z; > }
Shouldn't these actually be "break;"s ? It seems like the loop is stepping through X, Y, and Z. The _result_ is accidentally the same: X: set X, Y, and Z Y: set Y and Z Z: set Z result: X, Y, and Z are set correctly. But the code is technically wrong. -- Kees Cook
