| Message ID | 20190401193931.GA1135@embeddedor |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next] rxrpc: Mark expected switch fall-through | expand |
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:39:31 -0500 > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > > This patch fixes the following warning: > > net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’: > net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > if (ret < 0) { > ^ > net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here > case AF_INET: > ^~~~ > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations > at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why > I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through > is already mentioned in a few lines above. > > This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable > -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Applied.
On 4/3/19 11:39 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:39:31 -0500 > >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. >> >> This patch fixes the following warning: >> >> net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’: >> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] >> if (ret < 0) { >> ^ >> net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here >> case AF_INET: >> ^~~~ >> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 >> >> Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations >> at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why >> I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through >> is already mentioned in a few lines above. >> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> > > Applied. > Thanks, Dave. -- Gustavo
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote: > /* Fall through and set IPv4 options too otherwise we don't get > * errors from IPv4 packets sent through the IPv6 socket. > */ > - > + /* Fall through */ Er, no. Please (a) don't remove the blank line that's providing visual separation and (b) observe that the previous comment already says "Fall through" right at the beginning, so NAK. If the compiler doesn't recognise this, then fix the compiler please. David
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/local_object.c b/net/rxrpc/local_object.c index 15cf42d5b53a..9157fd00dce3 100644 --- a/net/rxrpc/local_object.c +++ b/net/rxrpc/local_object.c @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int rxrpc_open_socket(struct rxrpc_local *local, struct net *net) /* Fall through and set IPv4 options too otherwise we don't get * errors from IPv4 packets sent through the IPv6 socket. */ - + /* Fall through */ case AF_INET: /* we want to receive ICMP errors */ opt = 1;
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. This patch fixes the following warning: net/rxrpc/local_object.c: In function ‘rxrpc_open_socket’: net/rxrpc/local_object.c:175:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] if (ret < 0) { ^ net/rxrpc/local_object.c:184:2: note: here case AF_INET: ^~~~ Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 Currently, GCC is expecting to find the fall-through annotations at the very bottom of the case and on its own line. That's why I had to add the annotation, although the intentional fall-through is already mentioned in a few lines above. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> --- net/rxrpc/local_object.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)