In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case I placed the "fall through" comment
on its own line, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsi...@embeddedor.com>
---
Changes in v2:
Move the "fall through" comment on its own line
above the rest of the sentence.
net/smc/smc_close.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/smc/smc_close.c b/net/smc/smc_close.c
index f0d16fb..a6c6559 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_close.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_close.c
@@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work)
case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2;
- /* fall through to check for closing */
+ /* fall through */
+ /* to check for closing */
case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2:
case SMC_PEERFINCLOSEWAIT:
if (!smc_cdc_rxed_any_close(&smc->conn))
--
2.7.4
