Hi Gustavo, On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apparently, this code does not actually fall through to the next case > because the machine restarts before it has a chance. However, for the > sake of maintenance and readability, we better add the missing break > statement. > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1437892 ("Missing break in switch") > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c b/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c > index c0257e9..169f3d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ static void spi_slave_system_control_complete(void *arg) > case CMD_REBOOT: > dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Rebooting system...\n"); > kernel_restart(NULL); > + break; > > case CMD_POWEROFF: > dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Powering off system...\n"); Alternatively, kernel_restart() and friends could be marked __noreturn. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds