lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
From
Date
On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 08:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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 ?

I think it'd be clearer to avoid the trivial fallthrough
optimization/complexity and just directly use

return put_user(new_heartbeat, p);

as heartbeat and new_heartbeat are now the same value here.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-03 17:03    [W:0.597 / U:0.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site