Commit d331e758 authored by Gustavo A. R. Silva's avatar Gustavo A. R. Silva Committed by David S. Miller

net: dp83640: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Notice that in this particular case, I replaced the code comment at the
top of the switch statement with a proper "fall through" annotation for
each case, which is what GCC is expecting to find.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1056542 ("Missing break in switch")
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1339579 ("Missing break in switch")
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1369526 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: default avatarGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Acked-by: default avatarRichard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent 98ed1e64
......@@ -757,13 +757,16 @@ static int decode_evnt(struct dp83640_private *dp83640,
phy_txts = data;
switch (words) { /* fall through in every case */
switch (words) {
case 3:
dp83640->edata.sec_hi = phy_txts->sec_hi;
/* fall through */
case 2:
dp83640->edata.sec_lo = phy_txts->sec_lo;
/* fall through */
case 1:
dp83640->edata.ns_hi = phy_txts->ns_hi;
/* fall through */
case 0:
dp83640->edata.ns_lo = phy_txts->ns_lo;
}
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment