On 4/20/21 2:25 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Hi all, > > Friendly ping: who can take this, please? > > Thanks > -- > Gustavo > > On 11/20/20 12:28, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix a warning >> by explicitly adding a fallthrough pseudo-keyword in places where the >> code is intended to fall through to the next case. >> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/block/floppy.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c >> index 7df79ae6b0a1..21a2a7becba0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c >> @@ -2124,6 +2124,7 @@ static void format_interrupt(void) >> switch (interpret_errors()) { >> case 1: >> cont->error(); >> + fallthrough; >> case 2: >> break; >> case 0: I wonder about the consistency of the patches. The one I just applied for libata adds a break, this one annotates fallthrough. But the cases are really 100% the same. Why aren't the changes consistent? Both are obviously fine, but for identical cases it seems odd that they differ. IMHO, adding a break makes more sense. Annotate the fallthrough if the two cases share work that needs to be done, as then that solution makes sense. -- Jens Axboe
