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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:17:14 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com> Cc: linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch >> cases where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ >> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which >> is what GCC is expecting to find. >> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 >> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING : >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING; >> } >> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> + /* fall through */ > > Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all. > >> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> /* >> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING >> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF >> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n"); >> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT; >> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE; >> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> + /* fall through */ > > Again, we don;t need it here. > >> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF; >> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP; >> break; Ignore me, I misread the code... MBR, Sergei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists