block: t10-pi: fix -Wswitch warning (be21683e) · Commits · 戴 / test

Changing the switch() statement to symbolic constants made the compiler (at least clang-9, did not check gcc) notice that there is one enum value that is not handled here: block/t10-pi.c:62:11: error: enumeration value 'T10_PI_TYPE0_PROTECTION' not handled in switch [-Werror,-Wswitch] Add a BUG_ON statement if we ever get to t10_pi_verify function with TYPE0 and replace the switch() statement with if/else clause for the valid types. Fixes: 9b2061b1a262 ("block: use symbolic constants for t10_pi type") Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Signed-off-by:

Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by:

Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

block/t10-pi.c

+5 −6

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -55,13 +55,14 @@ static blk_status_t t10_pi_verify(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter,
		{
		unsigned int i;

		BUG_ON(type == T10_PI_TYPE0_PROTECTION);

		for (i = 0 ; i < iter->data_size ; i += iter->interval) {
		struct t10_pi_tuple *pi = iter->prot_buf;
		__be16 csum;

		switch (type) {
		case T10_PI_TYPE1_PROTECTION:
		case T10_PI_TYPE2_PROTECTION:
		if (type == T10_PI_TYPE1_PROTECTION \|\|
		type == T10_PI_TYPE2_PROTECTION) {
		if (pi->app_tag == T10_PI_APP_ESCAPE)
		goto next;

		@@ -73,12 +74,10 @@ static blk_status_t t10_pi_verify(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter,
		iter->seed, be32_to_cpu(pi->ref_tag));
		return BLK_STS_PROTECTION;
		}
		break;
		case T10_PI_TYPE3_PROTECTION:
		} else if (type == T10_PI_TYPE3_PROTECTION) {
		if (pi->app_tag == T10_PI_APP_ESCAPE &&
		pi->ref_tag == T10_PI_REF_ESCAPE)
		goto next;
		break;
		}

		csum = fn(iter->data_buf, iter->interval);

Admin message