Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: mark expected switch fall-throughs | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:23:35 -0600 |
| |
Miquel, Boris,
On 1/28/19 3:13 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Boris, > > Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org> wrote on Sat, 26 Jan 2019 > 17:54:29 +0100: > >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:48:50 -0600 >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey Boris, >>> >>> On 1/26/19 3:52 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:09:50 -0600 >>>> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c >>>>> index 933d1a629c51..d33e15dc4cdc 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nandsim.c >>>>> @@ -2251,9 +2251,10 @@ static int __init ns_init_module(void) >>>>> >>>>> switch (bbt) { >>>>> case 2: >>>>> - chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB; >>>>> + chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_NO_OOB; >>>>> + /* fall through */ >>>>> case 1: >>>>> - chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH; >>>>> + chip->bbt_options |= NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH; >>>> >>>> You miss a '/* fall through */' here. >>>> >>> >>> Not really. Notice that in this case the code falls through >>> to a break statement. >> >> Still find it weird to mandate fall through comments in all cases but >> this one... > > Yes please, even if there is no GCC warning I think you can add one > here. >
Yep. I get your point.
I've just sent v2: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1036251/
Thanks for the feedback. -- Gustavo
| |