Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Greg,
Quoting "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsi...@embeddedor.com>:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsi...@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> index 9b7e307..753d576 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ static int isp1362_hub_control(struct usb_hcd
> *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue,
> spin_lock_irqsave(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags);
> isp1362_write_reg32(isp1362_hcd, HCRHSTATUS, RH_HS_OCIC);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags);
> + /* fall through */
I'm suspicious this should be a 'break' instead.
What do you think?
Yeah, this should be a 'break', care to make that patch up instead?
Sure thing.
Just some questions about the process to follow:
Should I send a v2 replying to this particular thread only? like
[PATCH v2 6/9]
or should I send just a new patch separated from this patch series? I
guess this is the case.
Some maintainers have told me that in cases where a particular patch
in the series needs an update, the complete
patchset should be sent again. But I think that depends on the
functional impact the patch has over the whole patchset.
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
