From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Subject: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20171019220244.GA22041@embeddedor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" To: Ursula Braun , "David S. Miller" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that in this particular case I placed a "fall through" comment on its own line, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva --- net/smc/smc_close.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/smc/smc_close.c b/net/smc/smc_close.c index f0d16fb..9b16f40 100644 --- a/net/smc/smc_close.c +++ b/net/smc/smc_close.c @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work) case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1: if (rxflags->peer_done_writing) sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2; - /* fall through to check for closing */ + /* to check for closing */ + /* fall through */ case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2: case SMC_PEERFINCLOSEWAIT: if (!smc_cdc_rxed_any_close(&smc->conn)) -- 2.7.4