[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226174507.GC8682@roeck-us.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:45:07 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: smsc37b787_wdt: Mark expected switch
fall-through
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:42:06AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 2/18/19 10:08 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 2/14/19 12:16 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> >> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes the following warning:
> >>
> >> drivers/watchdog/smsc37b787_wdt.c: In function ‘wb_smsc_wdt_ioctl’:
> >> drivers/watchdog/smsc37b787_wdt.c:480:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> wb_smsc_wdt_set_timeout(timeout);
> >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> drivers/watchdog/smsc37b787_wdt.c:482:2: note: here
> >> case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
> >> ^~~~
> >>
> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>
> >> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comment is modified
> >> in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
> >>
> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >
>
> Thank you, Guenter.
>
>
> Friendly ping:
>
> Who can take this?
>
It is queued in my watchdog-next branch. Usually Wim will pick it up from there.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists