Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:08:24 -0500 | From | "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <> | Subject | [PATCH net-next] net: dp83640: Mark expected switch fall-throughs |
| |
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case, I replaced the code comment at the top of the switch statement with a proper "fall through" annotation for each case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056542 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1339579 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1369526 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/net/phy/dp83640.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/dp83640.c b/drivers/net/phy/dp83640.c index 79e9b10..29aa8d7 100644 --- a/drivers/net/phy/dp83640.c +++ b/drivers/net/phy/dp83640.c @@ -757,13 +757,16 @@ static int decode_evnt(struct dp83640_private *dp83640, phy_txts = data; - switch (words) { /* fall through in every case */ + switch (words) { case 3: dp83640->edata.sec_hi = phy_txts->sec_hi; + /* fall through */ case 2: dp83640->edata.sec_lo = phy_txts->sec_lo; + /* fall through */ case 1: dp83640->edata.ns_hi = phy_txts->ns_hi; + /* fall through */ case 0: dp83640->edata.ns_lo = phy_txts->ns_lo; } -- 2.7.4
| |