Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 05/25/2018 01:10 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this? Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block. I can change it to the traditional style. No problem. I would prefer that. So if you can send v2 that would be great. Yep. No problem. I'll send it shortly. Thanks -- Gustavo
Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 05/25/2018 08:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
@@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
switch (ar->hw.cap) {
case WMI_11AN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11A_CAP:
band_5gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11GN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11G_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11AG_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
band_5gig = true;
Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have
never seen this style...
Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this?
Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block.
I can change it to the traditional style. No problem.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes:
> On 05/25/2018 08:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
@@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
switch (ar->hw.cap) {
case WMI_11AN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11A_CAP:
band_5gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11GN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11G_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11AG_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
band_5gig = true;
>>>
>>> Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have
>>> never seen this style...
>>
>> Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this?
>>
>
> Sometimes people use this style for a one-line code block.
>
> I can change it to the traditional style. No problem.
I would prefer that. So if you can send v2 that would be great.
--
Kalle Valo
Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
> On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
>> @@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
>> wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
>> switch (ar->hw.cap) {
>> case WMI_11AN_CAP:
>> -ht = true;
>> +ht = true; /* fall through */
>> case WMI_11A_CAP:
>> band_5gig = true;
>> break;
>> case WMI_11GN_CAP:
>> -ht = true;
>> +ht = true; /* fall through */
>> case WMI_11G_CAP:
>> band_2gig = true;
>> break;
>> case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
>> -ht = true;
>> +ht = true; /* fall through */
>> case WMI_11AG_CAP:
>> band_2gig = true;
>> band_5gig = true;
>
>Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have
> never seen this style...
Yeah, I was wondering the same. Was there a particular reason for this?
--
Kalle Valo
Re: [PATCH] ath6kl: mark expected switch fall-throughs
Hello!
On 5/25/2018 2:13 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
index 2ba8cf3..29e32cd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
@@ -3898,17 +3898,17 @@ int ath6kl_cfg80211_init(struct ath6kl *ar)
wiphy->max_scan_ie_len = 1000; /* FIX: what is correct limit? */
switch (ar->hw.cap) {
case WMI_11AN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11A_CAP:
band_5gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11GN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11G_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
break;
case WMI_11AGN_CAP:
- ht = true;
+ ht = true; /* fall through */
case WMI_11AG_CAP:
band_2gig = true;
band_5gig = true;
Hm, typically such comments are done on a line of their own, have never
seen this style...
MBR, Sergei
