[PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through

[PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

This patch fixes the following warning:

net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’:
net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
   if (ret < 0) {
      ^
net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here
  case AF_INET:
  ^~~~

Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3

Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations
at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why
I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through
is already mentioned in a few lines above.

This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
-Wimplicit-fallthrough.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
 net/rxrpc/local_object.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/rxrpc/local_object.c b/net/rxrpc/local_object.c
index 15cf42d5b53a..9157fd00dce3 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/local_object.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/local_object.c
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int rxrpc_open_socket(struct rxrpc_local *local, struct net *net)
 		/* Fall through and set IPv4 options too otherwise we don't get
 		 * errors from IPv4 packets sent through the IPv6 socket.
 		 */
-
+		/* Fall through */
 	case AF_INET:
 		/* we want to receive ICMP errors */
 		opt = 1;
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through

[David Miller]

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:39:31 -0500

> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> This patch fixes the following warning:
> 
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’:
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>    if (ret < 0) {
>       ^
> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here
>   case AF_INET:
>   ^~~~
> 
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> 
> Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations
> at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why
> I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through
> is already mentioned in a few lines above.
> 
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

Applied.

Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 4/3/19 11:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:39:31 -0500
> 
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> This patch fixes the following warning:
>>
>> net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’:
>> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>    if (ret < 0) {
>>       ^
>> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here
>>   case AF_INET:
>>   ^~~~
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations
>> at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why
>> I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through
>> is already mentioned in a few lines above.
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> 
> Applied.
> 

Thanks, Dave.

--
Gustavo

Re: [PATCH net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through

[David Howells]

Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:

>  		/* Fall through and set IPv4 options too otherwise we don't get
>  		 * errors from IPv4 packets sent through the IPv6 socket.
>  		 */
> -
> +		/* Fall through */

Er, no.  Please (a) don't remove the blank line that's providing visual
separation and (b) observe that the previous comment already says "Fall
through" right at the beginning, so NAK.

If the compiler doesn't recognise this, then fix the compiler please.

David