lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:04:23PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
> > Notice that in this particular case I replaced "Fall" with a proper
> > "fall through" comment, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > index c0d07ee..c882252 100644
> > --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > pcipcwd_keepalive();
> > - /* Fall */
> > + /* fall through */
> > }
> >
> > case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
> Shouldn't the /* fall through */ come after the } ?
>
Good question. This is an unconditional code block needed to declare
a local variable within the case statement. What is correct in that
situation ?

Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-03 16:54    [W:0.103 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site