[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103104737.Horde.jIupkyXRbKxDR--eHgm0-aF@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 10:47:37 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
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 Wim,
Quoting Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>:
> 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 } ?
>
Yep, you are right.
I'll fix that.
Thank you!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
> Kind regards,
> Wim.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists