[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103230327.GA4635@embeddedor.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:03:27 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Subject: [PATCH] watchdog: watchdog_dev: mark expected switch fall-through
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/watchdog_dev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c b/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c
index 1e971a5..a79ad5b 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/watchdog_dev.c
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static long watchdog_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
err = watchdog_ping(wdd);
if (err < 0)
break;
- /* Fall */
+ /* fall through */
case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
/* timeout == 0 means that we don't know the timeout */
if (wdd->timeout == 0) {
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists