[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190801071136.37yjjr3kmdhfyxna@M43218.corp.atmel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:11:36 +0200
From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
<linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: atmel-mci: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:06:07AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 01:32:16PM +0200, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > > drivers/mmc/host/atmel-mci.c:2426:40: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> > > host->caps.need_notbusy_for_read_ops = 1;
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
> > > drivers/mmc/host/atmel-mci.c:2427:2: note: here
> > > case 0x100:
> > > ^~~~
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> >
> > I don't know if there is a policy in the kernel about the expression to
> > use. As this one does the job
>
> Yup, documented here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#implicit-switch-case-fall-through
Thanks for the pointer.
Regards
Ludovic
>
> > Acked-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists