Quoting Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>:
> 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 <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> > 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
From 1583062315665798527@xxx Fri Nov 03 16:17:51 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583056957567251846
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread