netdev - Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <871sdzc16l.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 16:30:42 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs

Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> writes:

> On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> @@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
>>   	wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
>>   	switch (ar->hw.cap) {
>>   	case WMI_11AN_CAP:
>> -		ht = true;
>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>   	case WMI_11A_CAP:
>>   		band_5gig = true;
>>   		break;
>>   	case WMI_11GN_CAP:
>> -		ht = true;
>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>   	case WMI_11G_CAP:
>>   		band_2gig = true;
>>   		break;
>>   	case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
>> -		ht = true;
>> +		ht = true; /* fall through */
>>   	case WMI_11AG_CAP:
>>   		band_2gig = true;
>>   		band_5gig = true;
>
>    Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have
> never seen this style...

Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this?

-- 
Kalle Valo