On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:38:15PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
> warnings by explicitly adding multiple break statements instead of
> letting the code fall through to the next case.
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo...@kernel.org>
> ---
>  net/netrom/nr_route.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netrom/nr_route.c b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
> index 78da5eab252a..de0456073dc0 100644
> --- a/net/netrom/nr_route.c
> +++ b/net/netrom/nr_route.c
> @@ -266,6 +266,7 @@ static int __must_check nr_add_node(ax25_address *nr, 
> const char *mnemonic,
>               fallthrough;
>       case 2:
>               re_sort_routes(nr_node, 0, 1);
> +             break;
>       case 1:
>               break;
>       }
> @@ -359,6 +360,7 @@ static int nr_del_node(ax25_address *callsign, 
> ax25_address *neighbour, struct n
>                                       fallthrough;
>                               case 1:
>                                       nr_node->routes[1] = nr_node->routes[2];
> +                                     fallthrough;

Make this one a break like the others.

>                               case 2:
>                                       break;
>                               }
> @@ -482,6 +484,7 @@ static int nr_dec_obs(void)
>                                       fallthrough;
>                               case 1:
>                                       s->routes[1] = s->routes[2];
> +                                     break;
>                               case 2:
>                                       break;
>                               }
> @@ -529,6 +532,7 @@ void nr_rt_device_down(struct net_device *dev)
>                                                       fallthrough;
>                                               case 1:
>                                                       t->routes[1] = 
> t->routes[2];
> +                                                     break;
>                                               case 2:
>                                                       break;
>                                               }

regards,
dan carpenter

Reply via email to