On 10/3/18 5:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:05 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> wrote:
>> On 10/3/18 5:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 05:05:04PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> I'll include the __noreturn in addition to the break statement.
> I'll send v2 shortly.
No need for a v2, I already applied this - adding __noreturn seems like
a separate (although desirable) effort.
signature.asc
Descriptio
Hi Gustavo,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:05 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
> On 10/3/18 5:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> >
> >>> case CMD_REBOOT:
> >>> de
Hi,
On 10/3/18 5:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
>
>>> case CMD_REBOOT:
>>> dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Rebooting system...\n");
>>> kernel_r
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:46:45PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> > case CMD_REBOOT:
> > dev_info(&priv->spi->dev, "Rebooting system...\n");
> > kernel_restart(NULL);
> > + break;
> Alte
Hi Gustavo,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
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.
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: Gust
7 matches
Mail list logo