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: <e777af5c-8d56-aef7-a4b6-f93f12378049@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 12:50:10 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc:     "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



On 05/25/2018 08:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> 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?
> 

Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block.

I can change it to the traditional style. No problem.

Thanks
--
Gustavo