2018-09-03 19:40:03

by Gustavo A. R. Silva

Subject: [PATCH] 9p: fix spelling mistake in fall-through annotation

Replace "fallthough" with a proper "fall through" annotation.

This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 402012 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
fs/9p/vfs_file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
index 5f2e48d..374bc1c 100644
--- a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int v9fs_file_do_lock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
break;
default:
WARN_ONCE(1, "unknown lock status code: %d\n", status);
- /* fallthough */
+ /* fall through */
case P9_LOCK_ERROR:
case P9_LOCK_GRACE:
res = -ENOLCK;
--
2.7.4

2018-09-03 22:31:10

by Dominique Martinet

Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix spelling mistake in fall-through annotation

Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote on Mon, Sep 03, 2018:
> Replace "fallthough" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
>
> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 402012 ("Missing break in switch")

I'm not a fan of these, as each coverity instance has their own ID, and
I have no idea if there is an "official" coverity for the linux
kernel -- is there?

(Well, I see many patches got landed with that, so I guess there would
be)

> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>

I'll take this, thanks.

--
Dominique