Source code is case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_SMALL: /* When not using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 128MB */ msg.address_lo = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; msg.address_hi = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_BIG: /* When using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 0 */ msg.address_lo = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; msg.address_hi = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; break; Possible unintended fallthrough. Suggest add break. Bug found by cppcheck, a static analysis tool.
case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_SMALL: /* When not using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 128MB */ msg.address_lo = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; msg.address_hi = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; //adding break case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_BIG: /* When using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 0 */ msg.address_lo = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; msg.address_hi = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; break;
(In reply to nickkrause from comment #1) > case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_SMALL: > /* When not using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 128MB */ > msg.address_lo = > ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; > msg.address_hi = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; > //adding break break; > > case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_BIG: > /* When using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 0 */ > msg.address_lo = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; > msg.address_hi = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; > break;
Is there any one reading or tracing bug as I have fixed it.
No changes or commits have been made to that file since 2011.
Then close the bug or add my break. Nick ---------------------------------------- > From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org > To: nickkrause@sympatico.ca > Subject: [Bug 60845] [TRIVIAL]arch/mips/pci/msi-octeon.c: 155: possible > missing break ? > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 14:36:56 +0000 > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60845 > > --- Comment #4 from Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> --- > No changes or commits have been made to that file since 2011. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
That's not how it works
Then Close the bug or otherwise find another solution without a break fallout through and even then why wouldn't you want a break there two different cases completely. Nick ---------------------------------------- > From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org > To: nickkrause@sympatico.ca > Subject: [Bug 60845] [TRIVIAL]arch/mips/pci/msi-octeon.c: 155: possible > missing break ? > Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:33:01 +0000 > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60845 > > --- Comment #6 from Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> --- > That's not how it works > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
What would you like to do to close this bug it is still open even through I send it code, would you like me to send it in a patch overwise it's fixed, close it.
If you submit it as per Documentation/SubmittingPatches I'm sure it'll get added
--- //home/nick/linux-3.13.5/arch/mips/pci/msi-octeon.c.orig 2014-03-05 22:48:19.084372515 -0500 +++ //home/nick/linux-3.13.5/arch/mips/pci/msi-octeon.c 2014-03-05 22:48:48.388372344 -0500 @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ msi_irq_allocated: msg.address_lo = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; msg.address_hi = ((128ul << 20) + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) >> 32; + break; case OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_BIG: /* When using big bar, Bar 0 is based at 0 */ msg.address_lo = (0 + CVMX_PCI_MSI_RCV) & 0xffffffff; Patch for fixing if you didn't get my email , took an hour to get used to the way you guys patch but now that I known it's easy and is good if I help out again.
Can someone please explain why this bug is still open after I haved resent my patch 4 times is it wrong as I didn't sign it off correctly , otherwise add the patch, as I am getting annoyed with the lack of support for bug fixing.
I've only seen one sending of it, followed by a request for it to have the correct Signed-off-by and no response ?
Thanks Alan I will resend after adding the Signed-off-by line to you and the other people needed.
I didn't get a reply by email if the patch was added and seems like it wasn't as the bug is still open. Do I need to resend the patch or did you get it and haven't closed the bug yet.
I think this bug is already fixed with commit commit 7f02c463057fc527f52066742b84d9d89b22e83d Author: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> Date: Mon Feb 10 18:42:57 2014 +0000 MIPS: Octeon: Fix fall through on bar type OCTEON_DMA_BAR_TYPE_SMALL This patch was introduced with v3.14-rc8
Then wouldn't this bug we closed or does it need to be verified first.