On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:54:01AM +0100, Roger Pau Monn303251 wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:23:11PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Roger Pau Monn303251 <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > > drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c > > index 98e34e4c62b8..270019e3e5d8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c > > @@ -2456,7 +2456,7 @@ static void blkback_changed(struct xenbus_device *dev, > > case XenbusStateClosed: > > if (dev->state == XenbusStateClosed) > > break; > > - /* Missed the backend's Closing state -- fallthrough */ > > + /* fall through */ > > This is losing information present in the original comment. Would > splitting the comment into two make gcc happy? What about: - /* Missed the backend's Closing state -- fallthrough */ + /* fallthrough -- Missed the backend's Closing state */ FIY: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wimplicit-fallthrough A dash seems to be needed between "fall through" and a extra comment, with fallthrough first. Regards, -- Anthony PERARD
