Quoting Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
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 ?
I think it is correct to place the comment outside the code block.
I'll send a patch shortly.
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
--
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
