netdev - Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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, 25 May 2018 21:10:22 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs

"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> writes:

> On 05/25/2018 08:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>
>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
>>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>>>> index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>>>> @@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
>>>>    	wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
>>>>    	switch (ar->hw.cap) {
>>>>    	case WMI_11AN_CAP:
>>>> -		ht = true;
>>>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>>>    	case WMI_11A_CAP:
>>>>    		band_5gig = true;
>>>>    		break;
>>>>    	case WMI_11GN_CAP:
>>>> -		ht = true;
>>>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>>>    	case WMI_11G_CAP:
>>>>    		band_2gig = true;
>>>>    		break;
>>>>    	case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
>>>> -		ht = true;
>>>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>>>    	case WMI_11AG_CAP:
>>>>    		band_2gig = true;
>>>>    		band_5gig = true;
>>>
>>>     Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have
>>> never seen this style...
>>
>> Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this?
>>
>
> Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block.
>
> I can change it to the traditional style. No problem.

I would prefer that. So if you can send v2 that would be great.

-- 
Kalle Valo