From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933255AbdKCPyc (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:54:32 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:45488 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752426AbdKCPy3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:54:29 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Q/g1LyGoOeKlon2jGuzG+CafJjuaXOVQW9OGJIlrJdpPZhN9mH4dnNMNBlBxp41LQtYWZAkA== Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:54:26 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Wim Van Sebroeck Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through Message-ID: <20171103155426.GA21990@roeck-us.net> References: <20171103144915.GA6243@embeddedor.com> <20171103150423.GA10138@infomag.iguana.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171103150423.GA10138@infomag.iguana.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > --- > > 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