>
> Right. That's because we've used MISSING_CASE() also in if-ladders in
> addition to the switch default case. From our POV the usage is similar.
>
Yep.
> *shrug*
>
> I guess I like /* fall through */ annotations next to MISSING_CASE()
> better than having two different macros depending on
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" wrote:
> Hi Jani,
>
> On 06/21/2018 03:03 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2018 02:06 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In
Hi Jani,
On 06/21/2018 03:03 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" wrote:
>> On 06/20/2018 02:06 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch
On 06/20/2018 02:06 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470102 ("Missing break in switch")
Any other
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470102 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 02:06 PM, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:31:00AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470102 ("Missing break in switch")
Any other advantage besides coverity?
Can't we
