Re: [PATCH] ARM: ep93xx: Mark expected switch fall-through

[Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>]

Hi!

On 08/08/2019 04:38, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> Fix the following warnings (Building: arm-ep93xx_defconfig arm):
> 
> arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c: In function 'crunch_do':
> arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c:46:3: warning: this statement may
> fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
>        memset(crunch_state, 0, sizeof(*crunch_state));
>        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c:53:2: note: here
>       case THREAD_NOTIFY_EXIT:
>       ^~~~
> 
> Notice that, in this particular case, the code comment is
> modified in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.
> 
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>

Acked-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>

> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c b/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c
> index 1c9a4be8b503..1c05c5bf7e5c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/crunch.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static int crunch_do(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long cmd, void *t)
>   		 * FALLTHROUGH: Ensure we don't try to overwrite our newly
>   		 * initialised state information on the first fault.
>   		 */
> +		/* Fall through */
>   
>   	case THREAD_NOTIFY_EXIT:
>   		crunch_task_release(thread);
>