Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-21 Thread David Miller
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:21:00 -0500 > > Quoting David Miller : > >> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" >> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500 >> >>> @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void

Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-21 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
Quoting David Miller : From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500 @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work) case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1: if

Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-21 Thread David Miller
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500 > @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct > *work) > case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1: > if (rxflags->peer_done_writing) > sk->sk_state =

[PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-19 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that in this particular case I placed a "fall through" comment on its own line, which is what GCC is expecting to find. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva