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>
diff --git a/block/t10-pi.c b/block/t10-pi.c
index 0c0120a..9803c7e 100644
--- a/block/t10-pi.c
+++ b/block/t10-pi.c
@@ -55,13 +55,14 @@
{
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 @@
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);
