[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171105151235.GA27007@roeck-us.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 07:12:35 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: watchdog: watchdog_dev: mark expected switch fall-through
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 06:03:27PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 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>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---
> 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) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists