[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] domain: try to address Coverity pointing out a missing "break" in domain_teardown()
Hi Jan, > On 1 Sep 2021, at 09:45, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> 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 <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> A grep inside Xen code show that we have occurence of: /* fallthrough */ /* Fallthrough */ falltrough Should we actually fix all of them ? Anyway this can be in an other patch. Reviewed-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx> Cheers Bertrand > --- > 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 > > >
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |