[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180809154720.GA17920@embeddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:47:20 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...el.com>,
linux-wimax@...el.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] wimax: usb-tx: 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 placed the "fall through"
annotation at the bottom of the case, which is what GCC is expecting
to find.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115075 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
---
drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/usb-tx.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/usb-tx.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/usb-tx.c
index 99ef81b..3a0e722 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/usb-tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/usb-tx.c
@@ -131,12 +131,12 @@ int i2400mu_tx(struct i2400mu *i2400mu, struct i2400m_msg_hdr *tx_msg,
dev_err(dev, "BM-CMD: too many stalls in "
"URB; resetting device\n");
usb_queue_reset_device(i2400mu->usb_iface);
- /* fallthrough */
} else {
usb_clear_halt(i2400mu->usb_dev, usb_pipe);
msleep(10); /* give the device some time */
goto retry;
}
+ /* fall through */
case -EINVAL: /* while removing driver */
case -ENODEV: /* dev disconnect ... */
case -ENOENT: /* just ignore it */
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists