forked from Minki/linux
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 <arnd@arndb.de> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
This commit is contained in:
parent
eb09b3cc46
commit
be21683e48
@ -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);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user