* [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
@ 2017-11-03 14:49 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 15:04 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2017-11-03 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck, Guenter Roeck
Cc: linux-watchdog, linux-kernel, Gustavo A. R. Silva
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@embeddedor.com>
---
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 14:49 [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2017-11-03 15:04 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2017-11-03 15:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 15:54 ` [PATCH] " Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2017-11-03 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva; +Cc: Guenter Roeck, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
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@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> 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 } ?
Kind regards,
Wim.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 15:04 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
@ 2017-11-03 15:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 16:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 15:54 ` [PATCH] " Guenter Roeck
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2017-11-03 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck; +Cc: Guenter Roeck, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
Hi Wim,
Quoting Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>:
> 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@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> 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 } ?
>
Yep, you are right.
I'll fix that.
Thank you!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
> Kind regards,
> Wim.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 15:04 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2017-11-03 15:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2017-11-03 15:54 ` Guenter Roeck
2017-11-03 15:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 16:02 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2017-11-03 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck; +Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
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@embeddedor.com>
> > ---
> > 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 15:54 ` [PATCH] " Guenter Roeck
@ 2017-11-03 15:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 16:02 ` Joe Perches
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2017-11-03 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
Quoting Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>:
> 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@embeddedor.com>
>> > ---
>> > 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 15:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2017-11-03 16:02 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-05 15:11 ` [v2] " Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2017-11-03 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck, Guenter Roeck
Cc: linux-watchdog, linux-kernel, Gustavo A. R. Silva
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@embeddedor.com>
---
Changes in v2:
Place the "fall through" comment outside the unconditional code block.
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..1f78f09 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
@@ -545,8 +545,8 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
return -EINVAL;
pcipcwd_keepalive();
- /* Fall */
}
+ /* fall through */
case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
return put_user(heartbeat, p);
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 15:54 ` [PATCH] " Guenter Roeck
2017-11-03 15:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2017-11-03 16:02 ` Joe Perches
2017-11-03 16:15 ` Guenter Roeck
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joe Perches @ 2017-11-03 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck, Wim Van Sebroeck
Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
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@embeddedor.com>
> > > ---
> > > 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 16:02 ` Joe Perches
@ 2017-11-03 16:15 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2017-11-03 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, Gustavo A. R. Silva, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:02:33AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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@embeddedor.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 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.
>
I don't think it really matters. What would matter would be for someone
to convert he driver to use the watchdog subsystem.
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through
2017-11-03 16:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2017-11-05 15:11 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2017-11-05 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-watchdog, linux-kernel
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 11:02:30AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 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@embeddedor.com>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> Place the "fall through" comment outside the unconditional code block.
>
> 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..1f78f09 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> @@ -545,8 +545,8 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> return -EINVAL;
>
> pcipcwd_keepalive();
> - /* Fall */
> }
> + /* fall through */
>
> case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
> return put_user(heartbeat, p);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-11-05 15:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-11-03 14:49 [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 15:04 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2017-11-03 15:47 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 16:02 ` [PATCH v2] " Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-05 15:11 ` [v2] " Guenter Roeck
2017-11-03 15:54 ` [PATCH] " Guenter Roeck
2017-11-03 15:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-03 16:02 ` Joe Perches
2017-11-03 16:15 ` Guenter Roeck
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).