On 4/30/19 9:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:05:51AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 4/29/19 9:44 AM, David Laight wrote:
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Sent: 29 April 2019 15:40
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
cases where we are expecting to fall through.
...
diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
index 667d9c0ec905..000ab7225717 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
@@ -508,6 +508,7 @@ static int vhci_hub_control(struct usb_hcd *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue,
case USB_PORT_FEAT_U1_TIMEOUT:
usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(
" SetPortFeature: USB_PORT_FEAT_U1_TIMEOUT\n");
+ /* Fall through */
case USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT:
usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(
" SetPortFeature: USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT\n");
That doesn't look right, both debug messages seem to get printed.
At first sight, I thought the same way, then I took a look into
commit:
1c9de5bf428612458427943b724bea51abde520a
and noticed that the original developer properly added fall-through
comments in other places in the same switch() code, that gave me the
impression he knew what he was doing; then I noticed the following
error message in case USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT:
if (hcd->speed != HCD_USB3) {
pr_err("USB_PORT_FEAT_U1/2_TIMEOUT req not "
"supported for USB 2.0 roothub\n");
goto error;
}
this error message is what makes me think the fall-through is
intentional; otherwise I think it would look like this instead:
if (hcd->speed != HCD_USB3) {
pr_err("USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT req not "
"supported for USB 2.0 roothub\n");
goto error;
}
I think you are right, that's horrid, but correct :(
Yes. This hub_control is poorly organized and could use cleanup.
Will go queue this up, thanks.
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Greg!. It is on my list of things to Ack today.
-- Shuah
