On 8/1/2018 3:38 PM, 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 "No break" with a
> proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
> to find.
Holy bikeshedding, Batman! For decades I've seen "no break" as
the proper way to warn that the lack of a "break;" is intentional.
I suppose that "Fall through" makes just as much sense. Grumble.
> Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Sure, I'll take this for 4.20 as my 4.19 changes are complete
and there doesn't seem to be special urgency.
> ---
> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> index ad45761..a307b00 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> @@ -3739,7 +3739,7 @@ static void smack_d_instantiate(struct dentry
> *opt_dentry, struct inode *inode)
> */
> final = &smack_known_star;
> /*
> - * No break.
> + * Fall through.
> *
> * If a smack value has been set we want to use it,
> * but since tmpfs isn't giving us the opportunity
