On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:39:34AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch fixes the following warning: > > drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c: In function ‘collect_qtds’: > drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:788:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > mem_reads8(hcd->regs, qtd->payload_addr, > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > qtd->data_buffer, > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > qtd->actual_length); > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c:792:5: note: here > case OUT_PID: > ^~~~ > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > Notice that, in this particular case, the code comments are modified > in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find. > > This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable > -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Notice that this code has been out there since 2011, and who > introduced the question mark was the original developer. > > It'd be good if someone can confirm that the fall-through > has been intentional all this time. Yes, it looks intentional. Messy, and as no one has complained since 2011, let's leave it alone, I'll queue this up. thanks, greg k-h
