[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171019220244.GA22041@embeddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Subject: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case I placed a "fall through" comment on
its own line, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
---
net/smc/smc_close.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/smc/smc_close.c b/net/smc/smc_close.c
index f0d16fb..9b16f40 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_close.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_close.c
@@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work)
case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2;
- /* fall through to check for closing */
+ /* to check for closing */
+ /* fall through */
case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2:
case SMC_PEERFINCLOSEWAIT:
if (!smc_cdc_rxed_any_close(&smc->conn))
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists