[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103150423.GA10138@infomag.iguana.be>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:04:23 +0100
From: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
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 } ?
Kind regards,
Wim.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists