On 12. 02. 19, 20:19, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> This patch fixes the following warning:
>
> drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c: In function ‘n_hdlc_tty_ioctl’:
> drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:775:3: warning: this statement may fall through
> [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> switch (arg) {
> ^~~~~~
> drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:782:2: note: here
> default:
> ^~~~~~~
>
> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>
> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comment is modified
> in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
Oh well, and that is:
> [ \t.!]*([Ee]lse,? |[Ii]ntentional(ly)? )?fall(s | |-)?thr(ough|u)[
\t.!]*(-[^\n\r]*)?
for implicit-fallthrough > 2.
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
But will we ever enable warning > 2? Does it even make sense?
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c b/drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c
> index 8bdf42bc8fc8..e55c79eb6430 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c
> @@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ static int n_hdlc_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty,
> struct file *file,
> case TCOFLUSH:
> flush_tx_queue(tty);
> }
> - /* fall through to default */
> + /* fall through - to default */
As the former makes more sense than the latter here.
> default:
> error = n_tty_ioctl_helper(tty, file, cmd, arg);
>
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
