On 5/1/19 11:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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. > Great. Thanks, Greg. -- Gustavo
