[PATCH] 9p: fix spelling mistake in fall-through annotation

[PATCH] 9p: fix spelling mistake in fall-through annotation

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Replace "fallthough" with a proper "fall through" annotation.

This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 402012 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
---
 fs/9p/vfs_file.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
index 5f2e48d..374bc1c 100644
--- a/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/9p/vfs_file.c
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int v9fs_file_do_lock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
 		break;
 	default:
 		WARN_ONCE(1, "unknown lock status code: %d\n", status);
-		/* fallthough */
+		/* fall through */
 	case P9_LOCK_ERROR:
 	case P9_LOCK_GRACE:
 		res = -ENOLCK;
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix spelling mistake in fall-through annotation

[Dominique Martinet]

Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote on Mon, Sep 03, 2018:
> Replace "fallthough" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
> 
> This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
> 
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 402012 ("Missing break in switch")

I'm not a fan of these, as each coverity instance has their own ID, and
I have no idea if there is an "official" coverity for the linux
kernel -- is there?

(Well, I see many patches got landed with that, so I guess there would
be)

> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

I'll take this, thanks.

-- 
Dominique