From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:21:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20190214232122.GS10129@piout.net> References: <20190129180612.GA28650@embeddedor> <432a9399-95f4-e988-5cd2-93340f155fa1@microchip.com> <20190214221703.GQ10129@piout.net> <20190214230756.GR10129@piout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, wg@grandegger.com, mkl@pengutronix.de, davem@davemloft.net, Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook List-Id: linux-can.vger.kernel.org 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