Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 2/11/19 3:03 AM, nicolas.fe...@microchip.com wrote: > On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, 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, the /* fall through */ >> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which >> is what GCC is expecting to find. >> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 >> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > > Looks good to me: > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > Thanks, Nicolas. -- Gustavo >> --- >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 -- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING : >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING; >> } >> -case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> +/* fall through */ >> +case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> /* >> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING >> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF >> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n"); >> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT; >> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE; >> -case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> +/* fall through */ >> +case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF; >> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP; >> break; >> > >
Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 08/02/2019 at 19:44, 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, the /* fall through */ > comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which > is what GCC is expecting to find. > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva Looks good to me: Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 -- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, > CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING : > CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING; > } > - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ > + /* fall through */ > + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: > /* >* from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING >* to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF > @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, > netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n"); > cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT; > cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE; > - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ > + /* fall through */ > + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: > reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF; > reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP; > break; > -- Nicolas Ferre
Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 02/08/2019 09:55 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch >> cases where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> Notice that, in this particular case, the /* fall through */ >> comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which >> is what GCC is expecting to find. >> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 >> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva >> --- >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 -- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c >> @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING : >> CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING; >> } >> -case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> +/* fall through */ > >Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all. > >> +case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> /* >> * from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING >> * to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF >> @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, >> netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n"); >> cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT; >> cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE; >> -case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ >> +/* fall through */ > >Again, we don;t need it here. > >> +case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: >> reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF; >> reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP; >> break; Ignore me, I misread the code... MBR, Sergei
Re: [PATCH][next] can: at91_can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
Hello! On 02/08/2019 09:44 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, the /* fall through */ > comments are placed at the bottom of the case statement, which > is what GCC is expecting to find. > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling > -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > --- > drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 -- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > index d98c69045b17..1718c20f9c99 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > +++ b/drivers/net/can/at91_can.c > @@ -902,7 +902,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, > CAN_ERR_CRTL_TX_WARNING : > CAN_ERR_CRTL_RX_WARNING; > } > - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ > + /* fall through */ Why do we need this comment at all? Just remove it, that's all. > + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: > /* >* from: ERROR_ACTIVE, ERROR_WARNING >* to : ERROR_PASSIVE, BUS_OFF > @@ -951,7 +952,8 @@ static void at91_irq_err_state(struct net_device *dev, > netdev_dbg(dev, "Error Active\n"); > cf->can_id |= CAN_ERR_PROT; > cf->data[2] = CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE; > - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */ > + /* fall through */ Again, we don;t need it here. > + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: > reg_idr = AT91_IRQ_ERRA | AT91_IRQ_WARN | AT91_IRQ_BOFF; > reg_ier = AT91_IRQ_ERRP; > break; MBR, Serfei
