Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Anders Roxell <> | Subject | [PATCH] arm_pmu: Mark expected switch fall-through | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 13:27:37 +0200 |
| |
When fall-through warnings was enabled by default the following warning was starting to show up:
../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c: In function ‘cpu_pm_pmu_notify’: ../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c:726:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] cpu_pm_pmu_setup(armpmu, cmd); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c:727:2: note: here case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED: ^~~~
Rework so that the compiler doesn't warn about fall-through.
Fixes: d93512ef0f0e ("Makefile: Globally enable fall-through warning") Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> ---
I'm not convinced that this is the correct patch to fix this issue. However, I can't see why we do 'armpmu->start(armpmu);' only in 'case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED' and why we not call function cpu_pm_pmu_setup() there also, since in cpu_pm_pmu_setup() has a case prepared for CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED.
drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c index 2d06b8095a19..465a15705bab 100644 --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c @@ -724,6 +724,7 @@ static int cpu_pm_pmu_notify(struct notifier_block *b, unsigned long cmd, break; case CPU_PM_EXIT: cpu_pm_pmu_setup(armpmu, cmd); + /* Fall through */ case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED: armpmu->start(armpmu); break; -- 2.20.1
| |