From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hZ72b-000107-GI for ath11k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 07 Jun 2019 05:03:54 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath11k: fix fallthrough warnings References: <1559754036-2358-1-git-send-email-msinada@codeaurora.org> <87lfyevj9x.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <40b6f93fd815c3826d11088788a176e6@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 08:03:44 +0300 In-Reply-To: <40b6f93fd815c3826d11088788a176e6@codeaurora.org> (msinada@codeaurora.org's message of "Thu, 06 Jun 2019 14:19:56 -0700") Message-ID: <87muiut2a7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath11k" Errors-To: ath11k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: msinada@codeaurora.org Cc: ath11k@lists.infradead.org msinada@codeaurora.org writes: > On 2019-06-06 08:13, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Muna Sinada writes: >> >>> Marked expected switch case fall-through. >>> >>> Fall through warnings were generated when running ath11k-check script >>> with --extra flag: >>> >>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c:741:14: >>> warning: this statement may fall through Wimplicit-fallthrough=] >>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c:133:6: >>> warning: this statement may fall through [-Wplicit-fallthrough=] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Muna Sinada >> >> [...] >> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >>> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ int ath11k_dp_srng_setup(struct ath11k_base >>> *ab, struct dp_srng *ring, >>> break; >>> } >>> /* follow through when ring_num >= 3 */ >>> + /* fall through */ >> >> Duplicate comments saying the same thing, can't you merge those? > > ath11k_check did not recognize "fall through" in the first comment > causing the initial fall through warning. It seems that fall through > comment needs to be on a separate comment to avoid getting warning > from ath11k_check. Should I get rid of first comment or leave things > how they are now? Ah, I tested this myself now and indeed GCC does not regocnise '/* fall through when ring_num >= 3 */' as a valid fallthrough comment even the recommendation implied otherwise: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html Oh well, so I guess we just need to have two comments even it's IMHO ugly. Unless someone has other ideas? -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath11k mailing list ath11k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k