Since there is no comment indicating fallthrough on purpose added a
break in switch value 3 and 5/before default.
Fix for coverity issue from Ceph project:
CID 1193080 (#1 of 1): Missing break in switch (MISSING_BREAK)
unterminated_case: This case (value 3) is not terminated by a 'break'
statement.
CID 1193081 (#1 of 1): Missing break in switch (MISSING_BREAK)
unterminated_case: This case (value 5) is not terminated by a 'break'
statement.
Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
Since there is no comment indicating fallthrough on purpose added a
break in switch value 5/before default.
Fix for coverity issue from Ceph project:
CID 1193079 (#1 of 1): Missing break in switch (MISSING_BREAK)
unterminated_case: This case (value 5) is not terminated by a 'break'
statement.
Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
Instead of checking w128[0] twice check for w128[0] and w128[1].
Fix for coverity issue from Ceph project:
CID 1193072 (#1 of 1): Same on both sides (CONSTANT_EXPRESSION_RESULT)
pointless_expression: The expression v1->w128[0] == v2->w128[0] &&
v1->w128[0] == v2->w128[0] does not accomplish anything because it
evaluates to either of its identical operands, v1->w128[0] == v2->w128[0].
Did you intend the operands to be different?
Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
Acknowledge that gf_w128_split_4_128_multiply_region and
gf_w128_split_4_128_sse_multiply_region are only used when the
INTEL_SSE4 flag is present, even though they only need INTEL_SSSE3
It suppresses a compilation warning complaining about them not being
used if INTEL_SSE4 is absent and INTEL_SSSE3 is present.
Signed-off-by: Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>
Danny Al-Gaaf