From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:58840 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967452AbeEYSK3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 14:10:29 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs References: <20180524231322.GA22704@embeddedor.com> <060f93a0-7210-79b6-37a7-cd8900719d40@cogentembedded.com> <871sdzc16l.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 21:10:22 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Gustavo A. R. Silva's message of "Fri, 25 May 2018 12:50:10 -0500") Message-ID: <87k1rr8v3l.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20180525_201058_760429_E9559BBC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: > On 05/25/2018 08:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Sergei Shtylyov writes: >> >>> On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>> >>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>>> where we are expecting to fall through. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva >>>> --- >>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c >>>> index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c >>>> @@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar) >>>> wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */ >>>> switch (ar->hw.cap) { >>>> case WMI_11AN_CAP: >>>> - ht = true; >>>> + ht = true; /* fall through */ >>>> case WMI_11A_CAP: >>>> band_5gig = true; >>>> break; >>>> case WMI_11GN_CAP: >>>> - ht = true; >>>> + ht = true; /* fall through */ >>>> case WMI_11G_CAP: >>>> band_2gig = true; >>>> break; >>>> case WMI_11AGN_CAP: >>>> - ht = true; >>>> + ht = true; /* fall through */ >>>> case WMI_11AG_CAP: >>>> band_2gig = true; >>>> band_5gig = true; >>> >>> Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have >>> never seen this style... >> >> Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this? >> > > Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block. > > I can change it to the traditional style. No problem. I would prefer that. So if you can send v2 that would be great. -- Kalle Valo