similar to: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/bios/timing: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 03:31, Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars at kernel.org> wrote: > > Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with > the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary > fall-through markings when it is the case. I really like this! I was not a fan of explicitly marking those with comments. Thank you, taken in my

Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary fall-through markings when it is the case. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars at kernel.org> ---

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143119 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143120 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143121 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143122 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143123 Addresses-Coverity-ID: 143124 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> ---

Merges in skeggsb's: "fb/ram/gf10x: timing_10_0e_30" Todo: - find l3, rq - triple-check Signed-off-by: Roy Spliet <nouveau at spliet.org> --- .../drm/nouveau/include/nvkm/subdev/bios/ramcfg.h | 12 +++--- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/rammap.c | 22 ++++++++-- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/timing.c | 2 +

Add null check before dereferencing pointer asyc Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397932 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c index a766324..052a60a 100644 ---

On 05/23/2017 05:12 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Add null check before dereferencing pointer asyc I've taken the patch into my tree, thanks! Ben. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1397932 > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:40 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva at embeddedor.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > While doing some static analysis I ran into the following piece of code at > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/vmm.c:957: > > 957#define node(root, dir) ((root)->head.dir == &vmm->list) ? NULL : > \ > 958 list_entry((root)->head.dir,

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/disp/hdmi.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/dma/usernv04.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/engine/fifo/nv04.c | 2 ++

Hi, Friendly ping: Who can take this? Thanks -- Gustavo On 10/17/18 9:28 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch aims to suppress 29 missing-break-in-switch false positives. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1456891 ("Missing break in switch") >

Two patches went missing as a result of PEBCAK. No v2 marks as nothing changed really. Just resending for easier enforcement of patch order in other people's trees. Sorry for the noise. Original message: No, no, these will not implement Fermi reclocking. This set of patches contains some of the preparatory work that I deem stable enough to move upstream. Notable changes - Training pattern

<dropping llvm-commits> On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > > There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. > I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo at embeddedor.com> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 21:42:05 -0500 > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1402059 ("Missing break in switch") > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1402060 ("Missing break in switch") >

Signed-off-by: Roy Spliet <rspliet at eclipso.eu> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/include/nvkm/subdev/bios/ramcfg.h | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/rammap.c | 3 ++- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/bios/timing.c | 2 ++ drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/fb/gddr3.c | 6 ++++-- 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. This patch aims to suppress 29 missing-break-in-switch false positives. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1456891 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1324063 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1324063 ("Missing break in switch")

This is Chris' call to make, imo. -j On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > Ping. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > Ping. > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu>wrote: > Hey Alex, > > Sorry if this is a silly question... are you asking if anyone "wants the > functionality proposed" or "wants to write the code for the functionality > proposed"? > *-Wimplicit-fallthrough* diagnostic is already implemented, and the patch in this thread

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > <dropping llvm-commits> > > > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > > > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > >> > >> There was a discussion on

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > <dropping llvm-commits> > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, >> >> There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. > > I missed the earlier

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > Notice that, in some cases, the code comment is modified > in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.

Ping. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > Ping. > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at