From be21683e48f26032199504fb60b9a27eeff05fc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Max Gurtovoy Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:46:55 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] block: t10-pi: fix -Wswitch warning 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 Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe --- block/t10-pi.c | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/t10-pi.c b/block/t10-pi.c index 0c0120a672f9..9803c7e0376e 100644 --- a/block/t10-pi.c +++ b/block/t10-pi.c @@ -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);