* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 21:37 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni,
Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>
>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>> ^
>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> ^~~~
>>
>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>
>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>
>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>> is expecting to find.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>
> For this one:
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>
Thanks, Nicolas.
Dave:
I wonder if you can take this patch.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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;
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>> index c458d5fdc8d3..e4f4d65a76b4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>> @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static int pciefd_can_probe(struct pciefd_board *pciefd)
>> pciefd_can_writereg(priv, CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ,
>> PCIEFD_REG_CAN_CLK_SEL);
>>
>> - /* fallthough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> case CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ:
>> priv->ucan.can.clock.freq = 80 * 1000 * 1000;
>> break;
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>> index e90817608645..17257c73c302 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mcp251x_can_ist(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING &&
>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>> priv->can.can_stats.error_warning++;
>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>> + /* fall through */
>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_PASSIVE &&
>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>> priv->can.can_stats.error_passive++;
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>> index 13238a72a338..eca785532b6b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static int pcan_usb_decode_error(struct pcan_usb_msg_context *mc, u8 n,
>> new_state = CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING;
>> break;
>> }
>> - /* else: fall through */
>> + /* fall through */
>>
>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_HEAVY) {
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 21:37 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-14 22:17 ` Alexandre Belloni
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: linux-kernel, netdev, linux-can, Ludovic.Desroches, mkl,
linux-arm-kernel, davem, wg
Hi,
On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> > On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> >> where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes the following warnings:
> >>
> >> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
> >> ^
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
> >> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >> ^~~~
> >>
> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>
> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>
> >> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
> >> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
> >> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
> >> is expecting to find.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> >
> > For this one:
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> >
>
> Thanks, Nicolas.
>
I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
> Dave:
>
> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> >> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
> >> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
wrong.
Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
tested with gcc 8.2).
The matching regex is [ \t.!]*([Ee]lse,? |[Ii]ntentional(ly)? )?
fall(s | |-)?thr(ough|u)[ \t.!]*(-[^\n\r]*)?
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 22:17 ` Alexandre Belloni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hi,
On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> > On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> >> where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes the following warnings:
> >>
> >> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
> >> ^
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
> >> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >> ^~~~
> >>
> >> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>
> >> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> >> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>
> >> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
> >> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
> >> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
> >> is expecting to find.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> >
> > For this one:
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> >
>
> Thanks, Nicolas.
>
I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
> Dave:
>
> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
> >> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
> >> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
> >> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
wrong.
Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
tested with gcc 8.2).
The matching regex is [ \t.!]*([Ee]lse,? |[Ii]ntentional(ly)? )?
fall(s | |-)?thr(ough|u)[ \t.!]*(-[^\n\r]*)?
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 22:17 ` Alexandre Belloni
@ 2019-02-14 23:04 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>> ^
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>> ^~~~
>>>>
>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>
>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>>
>>> For this one:
>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>
>
> I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>
It wasn't intentional.
>> Dave:
>>
>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Gustavo
>>
>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
>
> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
> wrong.
>
> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> tested with gcc 8.2).
>
Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 23:04 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: linux-kernel, Kees Cook, netdev, linux-can, Ludovic.Desroches,
mkl, linux-arm-kernel, davem, wg
On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>> ^
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>> ^~~~
>>>>
>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>
>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>>
>>> For this one:
>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>
>
> I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>
It wasn't intentional.
>> Dave:
>>
>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Gustavo
>>
>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
>
> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
> wrong.
>
> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> tested with gcc 8.2).
>
Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 23:04 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-14 23:07 ` Alexandre Belloni
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> >>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> >>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
> >>>> ^
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
> >>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >>>> ^~~~
> >>>>
> >>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> >>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
> >>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
> >>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
> >>>> is expecting to find.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> >>>
> >>> For this one:
> >>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks, Nicolas.
> >>
> >
> > I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
> >
>
> It wasn't intentional.
>
> >> Dave:
> >>
> >> I wonder if you can take this patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Gustavo
> >>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
> >>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
> >
> > Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>
> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>
> > is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
> > wrong.
> >
> > Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> > recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> > tested with gcc 8.2).
> >
>
> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>
Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 23:07 ` Alexandre Belloni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: linux-kernel, Kees Cook, netdev, linux-can, Ludovic.Desroches,
mkl, linux-arm-kernel, davem, wg
On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> >>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> >>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
> >>>>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> >>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
> >>>> ^
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
> >>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
> >>>> ^~~~
> >>>>
> >>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
> >>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
> >>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
> >>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
> >>>> is expecting to find.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
> >>>
> >>> For this one:
> >>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks, Nicolas.
> >>
> >
> > I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
> >
>
> It wasn't intentional.
>
> >> Dave:
> >>
> >> I wonder if you can take this patch.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Gustavo
> >>
> >>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
> >>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
> >>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
> >>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
> >
> > Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>
> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>
> > is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
> > wrong.
> >
> > Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> > recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> > tested with gcc 8.2).
> >
>
> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>
Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 23:07 ` Alexandre Belloni
(?)
@ 2019-02-14 23:14 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
On 2/14/19 5:07 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>>>> ^~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>>>>
>>>>> For this one:
>>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't intentional.
>>
>>>> Dave:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
>>>
>>> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>>
>> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>>
>>> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
>>> tested with gcc 8.2).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
>> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>>
>
> Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
>
Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 23:14 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
On 2/14/19 5:07 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>>>> ^~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>>>>
>>>>> For this one:
>>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't intentional.
>>
>>>> Dave:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
>>>
>>> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>>
>> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>>
>>> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
>>> tested with gcc 8.2).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
>> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>>
>
> Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
>
Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
--
Gustavo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 23:14 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-14 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandre Belloni
Cc: linux-kernel, Kees Cook, netdev, linux-can, Ludovic.Desroches,
mkl, linux-arm-kernel, davem, wg
On 2/14/19 5:07 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 14/02/2019 17:04:03-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:17 PM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 14/02/2019 15:37:26-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>>>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>>>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>>>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>>>>> ^
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>>>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>>>>> ^~~~
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>>>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>>>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>>>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>>>>> is expecting to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>>>>
>>>>> For this one:
>>>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Nicolas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I though I had a déjà vu but you actually sent the at91 part twice.
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't intentional.
>>
>>>> Dave:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> --
>>>> Gustavo
>>>>
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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 */
>>>
>>> Seriously, for that one, you should fix the compiler. The fall through
>>
>> I'll pass your feedback on to the GCC guys.
>>
>>> is not implicit, it is actually quite explicit and the warning is simply
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
>>> tested with gcc 8.2).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
>> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
>>
>
> Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
>
Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
--
Gustavo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 23:14 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-14 23:21 ` Alexandre Belloni
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, Ludovic.Desroches, linux-can,
netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
On 14/02/2019 17:14:05-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> >>> tested with gcc 8.2).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
> >> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
> >>
> >
> > Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
> >
>
> Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
>
Right, I misread the patch and though you were moving the comment after
the case statement.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-14 23:21 ` Alexandre Belloni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre Belloni @ 2019-02-14 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Cc: linux-kernel, Kees Cook, netdev, linux-can, Ludovic.Desroches,
mkl, linux-arm-kernel, davem, wg
On 14/02/2019 17:14:05-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> >>> tested with gcc 8.2).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case. Notice that the
> >> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
> >>
> >
> > Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
> >
>
> Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
>
Right, I misread the patch and though you were moving the comment after
the case statement.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
2019-02-14 21:37 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
@ 2019-02-19 2:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-19 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni,
Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: linux-can, netdev, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, Kees Cook
Hi,
Friendly ping:
Dave, I wonder if you can take this.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On 2/14/19 3:37 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>> ^
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> ^~~~
>>>
>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>
>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>
>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>> is expecting to find.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>
>> For this one:
>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>
>
> Thanks, Nicolas.
>
> Dave:
>
> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> index c458d5fdc8d3..e4f4d65a76b4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static int pciefd_can_probe(struct pciefd_board *pciefd)
>>> pciefd_can_writereg(priv, CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ,
>>> PCIEFD_REG_CAN_CLK_SEL);
>>>
>>> - /* fallthough */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> case CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ:
>>> priv->ucan.can.clock.freq = 80 * 1000 * 1000;
>>> break;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> index e90817608645..17257c73c302 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mcp251x_can_ist(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING &&
>>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>>> priv->can.can_stats.error_warning++;
>>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_PASSIVE &&
>>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>>> priv->can.can_stats.error_passive++;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> index 13238a72a338..eca785532b6b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static int pcan_usb_decode_error(struct pcan_usb_msg_context *mc, u8 n,
>>> new_state = CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> - /* else: fall through */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>>
>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_HEAVY) {
>>>
>>
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs
@ 2019-02-19 2:57 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Gustavo A. R. Silva @ 2019-02-19 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicolas.Ferre, wg, mkl, davem, alexandre.belloni,
Ludovic.Desroches
Cc: Kees Cook, netdev, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-can
Hi,
Friendly ping:
Dave, I wonder if you can take this.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On 2/14/19 3:37 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/19 2:11 AM, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>> On 29/01/2019 at 19:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes the following warnings:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c:668:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c:875:7: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:895:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c:953:15: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c: In function ‘pcan_usb_decode_error’:
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:422:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_LIGHT) {
>>> ^
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c:428:2: note: here
>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> ^~~~
>>>
>>> Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
>>>
>>> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
>>> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>>>
>>> Notice that in some cases spelling mistakes were fixed.
>>> In other cases, the /* fall through */ comment is placed
>>> at the bottom of the case statement, which is what GCC
>>> is expecting to find.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/can/at91_can.c | 6 ++++--
>>
>> For this one:
>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>
>
> Thanks, Nicolas.
>
> Dave:
>
> I wonder if you can take this patch.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>
>>> drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c | 2 +-
>>> drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c | 3 ++-
>>> drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c | 2 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 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;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> index c458d5fdc8d3..e4f4d65a76b4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/peak_canfd/peak_pciefd_main.c
>>> @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ static int pciefd_can_probe(struct pciefd_board *pciefd)
>>> pciefd_can_writereg(priv, CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ,
>>> PCIEFD_REG_CAN_CLK_SEL);
>>>
>>> - /* fallthough */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> case CANFD_CLK_SEL_80MHZ:
>>> priv->ucan.can.clock.freq = 80 * 1000 * 1000;
>>> break;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> index e90817608645..17257c73c302 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/spi/mcp251x.c
>>> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static irqreturn_t mcp251x_can_ist(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING &&
>>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>>> priv->can.can_stats.error_warning++;
>>> - case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING: /* fallthrough */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>> + case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> if (new_state >= CAN_STATE_ERROR_PASSIVE &&
>>> new_state <= CAN_STATE_BUS_OFF)
>>> priv->can.can_stats.error_passive++;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> index 13238a72a338..eca785532b6b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/pcan_usb.c
>>> @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ static int pcan_usb_decode_error(struct pcan_usb_msg_context *mc, u8 n,
>>> new_state = CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> - /* else: fall through */
>>> + /* fall through */
>>>
>>> case CAN_STATE_ERROR_WARNING:
>>> if (n & PCAN_USB_ERROR_BUS_HEAVY) {
>>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread