From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755069AbdKARil (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:38:41 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41908 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754997AbdKARij (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:38:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 18:38:51 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] usb: host: isp1362-hcd: mark expected switch fall-through Message-ID: <20171101173851.GA23225@kroah.com> References: <20171025140505.Horde.Fp_gUEW4gBVnvfU339nq4ex@gator4166.hostgator.com> <20171101160137.GA11038@kroah.com> <20171101122740.Horde._xxQDVAhVsVPYpvze4g7UsU@gator4166.hostgator.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171101122740.Horde._xxQDVAhVsVPYpvze4g7UsU@gator4166.hostgator.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 12:27:40PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman : > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > Greg, > > > > > > Quoting "Gustavo A. R. Silva" : > > > > > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva > > > > --- > > > > drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c > > > b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c > > > > index 9b7e307..753d576 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c > > > > @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ static int isp1362_hub_control(struct usb_hcd > > > > *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue, > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags); > > > > isp1362_write_reg32(isp1362_hcd, HCRHSTATUS, RH_HS_OCIC); > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags); > > > > + /* fall through */ > > > > > > I'm suspicious this should be a 'break' instead. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Yeah, this should be a 'break', care to make that patch up instead? > > > > Sure thing. > > Just some questions about the process to follow: > > Should I send a v2 replying to this particular thread only? like [PATCH v2 > 6/9] > or should I send just a new patch separated from this patch series? I guess > this is the case. Brand new patch is fine, this is gone from my patch queue. > Some maintainers have told me that in cases where a particular patch in the > series needs an update, the complete patchset should be sent again. > But I think that depends on the functional impact the patch has over > the whole patchset. Yes, it all depends, the rest of these patches are already in my tree. thanks, greg k-h