linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:57:45 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through


Quoting Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>:

> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:04:23PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>> Hi Gustavo,
>>
>> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> > where we are expecting to fall through.
>> >
>> > Notice that in this particular case I replaced "Fall" with a proper
>> > "fall through" comment, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> > index c0d07ee..c882252 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file,  
>> unsigned int cmd,
>> >  			return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> >  		pcipcwd_keepalive();
>> > -		/* Fall */
>> > +		/* fall through */
>> >  	}
>> >
>> >  	case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
>> > --
>> > 2.7.4
>> >
>>
>> Shouldn't the /* fall through */ come after the } ?
>>
> Good question. This is an unconditional code block needed to declare
> a local variable within the case statement. What is correct in that
> situation ?
>

I think it is correct to place the comment outside the code block.

I'll send a patch shortly.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva