On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:04:23PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: > Hi Gustavo, > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > Notice that in this particular case I replaced "Fall" with a proper > > "fall through" comment, which is what GCC is expecting to find. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c > > index c0d07ee..c882252 100644 > > --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c > > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c > > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, > > return -EINVAL; > > > > pcipcwd_keepalive(); > > - /* Fall */ > > + /* fall through */ > > } > > > > case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT: > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > > Shouldn't the /* fall through */ come after the } ? > Good question. This is an unconditional code block needed to declare a local variable within the case statement. What is correct in that situation ? Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
