Hi Gustavo,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gust...@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> Apparently, this code does not actually fall through to the next case
> because the machine restarts before it has a chance. However, for the
> sake of maintenance and readability, we better add the missing break
> statement.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1437892 ("Missing break in switch")
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gust...@embeddedor.com>
> ---
> drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c
> b/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c
> index c0257e9..169f3d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-slave-system-control.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ static void spi_slave_system_control_complete(void *arg)
> case CMD_REBOOT:
> dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Rebooting system...\n");
> kernel_restart(NULL);
> + break;
>
> case CMD_POWEROFF:
> dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Powering off system...\n");
Alternatively, kernel_restart() and friends could be marked __noreturn.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
