Hi Kees,
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 21:48:10 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:52 PM Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:31:40 -0600 Steve French wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Both of those cases are intentional fallthroughs and there are
> > > existing comments in
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:52 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:31:40 -0600 Steve French wrote:
> >
> > Both of those cases are intentional fallthroughs and there are
> > existing comments in the code noting the reasons for them to
> > fallthrough
> >
> > (also ca
Hi Steve,
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:31:40 -0600 Steve French wrote:
>
> Both of those cases are intentional fallthroughs and there are
> existing comments in the code noting the reasons for them to
> fallthrough
>
> (also can see the reasoning for these in the commits which introduced
> them from S
Both of those cases are intentional fallthroughs and there are
existing comments in the code noting the reasons for them to
fallthrough
(also can see the reasoning for these in the commits which introduced
them from Sachin c369c9a4a7c82) and dde2356c84662)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM Stephen R
Hi all,
After merging the cifs tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/cifs/sess.c: In function 'cifs_select_sectype':
fs/cifs/sess.c:527:3: warning: this statement may fall through
[-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
switch (requested) {
^~
fs/cifs/s
5 matches
Mail list logo
