On Fri, 2017-11-03 at 08:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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'd be clearer to avoid the trivial fallthrough optimization/complexity and just directly use return put_user(new_heartbeat, p); as heartbeat and new_heartbeat are now the same value here. -- 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
