Re: [PATCH] watchdog: pcwd_pci: mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Quoting Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 04:04:23PM +0100, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> > Hi Gustavo,
> >
> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > > where we are expecting to fall through.
> > >
> > > Notice that in this particular case I replaced "Fall" with a proper
> > > "fall through" comment, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > > index c0d07ee..c882252 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> > > @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static long pcipcwd_ioctl(struct file *file,  
> > unsigned int cmd,
> > >  			return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > >  		pcipcwd_keepalive();
> > > -		/* Fall */
> > > +		/* fall through */
> > >  	}
> > >
> > >  	case WDIOC_GETTIMEOUT:
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> >
> > Shouldn't the /* fall through */ come after the } ?
> Good question. This is an unconditional code block needed to declare
> a local variable within the case statement. What is correct in that
> situation ?

I think it is correct to place the comment outside the code block.

I'll send a patch shortly.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva