Received: by 2002:ac0:946b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j40csp193782imj; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:23:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia9PdZ985yF7VcBf+sx9OXYkx0QMKAxPRDpds1dDV/2yDtzG2I9dXWxNY3pm2aJvKL+TdO/ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:29c9:: with SMTP id h67mr7628043plb.111.1550197423921; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:23:43 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550197423; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aMu4Uw4oFyzAGbIlVZbG+CIPe4pKybdqY3JszGtSaczS/MhINlXw0KmxZiKD4jV9Qo hD4rZRju0EkPVKRUbW/UKFMwP6WWnRSIHaJlY5Qfw9FwCQu+PrighLTECw827ZcWQdj4 jwk7jT3RgP7r6ncZn2DMZQCXKwf1U/kmXJYMS8hJ9Skf18D0LvlfMnxXQfzSnmXPj/DI tD0w8CO4Ge4mGbS8h7DDk/hVMKcgCKlqJ1QWkjN3JTZsL1++AusO6AGwEh5zeJGINv5n yci9cIKSzo+nkP5gjz7I9Bl/pBrMOlA1v9ldnlhl8qZ6/5Pe3isuSq76O/tLv6tG5myA N6Sg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=ggBfR7K8RmUv15t83thfINbOJh0bKfIL5oNJ/JpxEJg=; b=Ocw/NmAW26M5kAA4PHhqWdMLYVXnsnVSPxvdsvK32FLgod1vi6kvkAJ6w7EfmhhLFT VT91kvMpwNF4+CxxQVK7lP/f5s+asTQJ30RVvMscMx0rouRxLr1FVTEYwy2uQhxoMcj5 XbkCiwjPQPjXmh/XMd/3hrebMCfIFvqiSiWhlkQypx/xzV553QXS6kaaRkD+0uwqDFSD dxiJYtdxDjxH9wLJwcxX1iPs2UhIsfSlY6i+bimng16EvhOBtpPBhbsSnbSBQJN2itWQ 47LNQOoW2xE6nZVrJG6wCqGyUFN9ElMJ4sx2HXsAeVGUj+OUKa0wBLbvfWHJuepv+/Fa iQOQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q6si4019883pgq.442.2019.02.14.18.23.28; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728975AbfBNXV1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:21:27 -0500 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.200]:34505 "EHLO relay7-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726289AbfBNXV0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:21:26 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 86.202.231.219 Received: from localhost (lfbn-lyo-1-149-219.w86-202.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.202.231.219]) (Authenticated sender: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1FA020002; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 23:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:21:22 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, wg@grandegger.com, mkl@pengutronix.de, davem@davemloft.net, Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs Message-ID: <20190214232122.GS10129@piout.net> References: <20190129180612.GA28650@embeddedor> <432a9399-95f4-e988-5cd2-93340f155fa1@microchip.com> <20190214221703.GQ10129@piout.net> <20190214230756.GR10129@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 14/02/2019 17:14:05-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > >>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > >>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I > >>> tested with gcc 8.2). > >>> > >> > >> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the > >> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case. > >> > > > > Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2. > > > > Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch. > Right, I misread the patch and though you were moving the comment after the case statement. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com