usbip: vhci_hcd: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:05:51AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/29/19 9:44 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Gustavo A. R. Silva
> >> Sent: 29 April 2019 15:40
> >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
> >> cases where we are expecting to fall through.
> > ...
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> >> index 667d9c0ec905..000ab7225717 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/usbip/vhci_hcd.c
> >> @@ -508,6 +508,7 @@ static int vhci_hub_control(struct usb_hcd *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue,
> >>  		case USB_PORT_FEAT_U1_TIMEOUT:
> >>  			usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(
> >>  				" SetPortFeature: USB_PORT_FEAT_U1_TIMEOUT\n");
> >> +			/* Fall through */
> >>  		case USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT:
> >>  			usbip_dbg_vhci_rh(
> >>  				" SetPortFeature: USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT\n");
> > 
> > That doesn't look right, both debug messages seem to get printed.
> > 
> 
> At first sight, I thought the same way, then I took a look into
> commit:
> 
> 1c9de5bf428612458427943b724bea51abde520a
> 
> and noticed that the original developer properly added fall-through
> comments in other places in the same switch() code, that gave me the
> impression he knew what he was doing; then I noticed the following
> error message in case USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT:
> 
> 	if (hcd->speed != HCD_USB3) {
> 		pr_err("USB_PORT_FEAT_U1/2_TIMEOUT req not "
> 		       "supported for USB 2.0 roothub\n");
> 		goto error;
> 	}
> 
> this error message is what makes me think the fall-through is
> intentional; otherwise I think it would look like this instead:
> 
> 	if (hcd->speed != HCD_USB3) {
> 		pr_err("USB_PORT_FEAT_U2_TIMEOUT req not "
> 		       "supported for USB 2.0 roothub\n");
> 		goto error;
> 	}

I think you are right, that's horrid, but correct :(

Will go queue this up, thanks.

greg k-h