[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 21:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: gustavo@...eddedor.com
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:39:31 -0500
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> This patch fixes the following warning:
>
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’:
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> if (ret < 0) {
> ^
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here
> case AF_INET:
> ^~~~
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations
> at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why
> I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through
> is already mentioned in a few lines above.
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Applied.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists