Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] net: netrom: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>]

Hi Dave,

I haven't received any feedback about these patches after resending them.

We had thousands of these warnings and now we are down to less than a hundred in
linux-next. I'm planning to take these patches in my -next tree for 5.14 as
I'm planning to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang for that release, too.

Are you OK with this?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 4/20/21 15:11, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Friendly ping: who can take this, please?
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
> 
> On 3/5/21 03:22, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
>> warnings by explicitly adding multiple break statements instead of
>> letting the code fall through to the next case.
>>
>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  net/netrom/nr_route.c | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/netrom/nr_route.c b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
>> index 78da5eab252a..de9821b6a62a 100644
>> --- a/net/netrom/nr_route.c
>> +++ b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
>> @@ -266,6 +266,7 @@ static int __must_check nr_add_node(ax25_address *nr, const char *mnemonic,
>>  		fallthrough;
>>  	case 2:
>>  		re_sort_routes(nr_node, 0, 1);
>> +		break;
>>  	case 1:
>>  		break;
>>  	}
>> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ static int nr_del_node(ax25_address *callsign, ax25_address *neighbour, struct n
>>  					fallthrough;
>>  				case 1:
>>  					nr_node->routes[1] = nr_node->routes[2];
>> +					break;
>>  				case 2:
>>  					break;
>>  				}
>> @@ -482,6 +484,7 @@ static int nr_dec_obs(void)
>>  					fallthrough;
>>  				case 1:
>>  					s->routes[1] = s->routes[2];
>> +					break;
>>  				case 2:
>>  					break;
>>  				}
>> @@ -529,6 +532,7 @@ void nr_rt_device_down(struct net_device *dev)
>>  							fallthrough;
>>  						case 1:
>>  							t->routes[1] = t->routes[2];
>> +							break;
>>  						case 2:
>>  							break;
>>  						}
>>