| Message ID | 1559754036-2358-1-git-send-email-msinada@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ath11k: fix fallthrough warnings | expand |
Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> writes: > Marked expected switch case fall-through. > > Fall through warnings were generated when running ath11k-check script > with --extra flag: > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c:741:14: > warning: this statement may fall through Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c:133:6: > warning: this statement may fall through [-Wplicit-fallthrough=] > > Signed-off-by: Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> [...] > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c > @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ int ath11k_dp_srng_setup(struct ath11k_base *ab, struct dp_srng *ring, > break; > } > /* follow through when ring_num >= 3 */ > + /* fall through */ Duplicate comments saying the same thing, can't you merge those?
On 2019-06-06 08:13, Kalle Valo wrote: > Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> writes: > >> Marked expected switch case fall-through. >> >> Fall through warnings were generated when running ath11k-check script >> with --extra flag: >> >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c:741:14: >> warning: this statement may fall through Wimplicit-fallthrough=] >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c:133:6: >> warning: this statement may fall through [-Wplicit-fallthrough=] >> >> Signed-off-by: Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> > > [...] > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ int ath11k_dp_srng_setup(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> struct dp_srng *ring, >> break; >> } >> /* follow through when ring_num >= 3 */ >> + /* fall through */ > > Duplicate comments saying the same thing, can't you merge those? ath11k_check did not recognize "fall through" in the first comment causing the initial fall through warning. It seems that fall through comment needs to be on a separate comment to avoid getting warning from ath11k_check. Should I get rid of first comment or leave things how they are now? Muna
msinada@codeaurora.org writes: > On 2019-06-06 08:13, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> writes: >> >>> Marked expected switch case fall-through. >>> >>> Fall through warnings were generated when running ath11k-check script >>> with --extra flag: >>> >>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c:741:14: >>> warning: this statement may fall through Wimplicit-fallthrough=] >>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c:133:6: >>> warning: this statement may fall through [-Wplicit-fallthrough=] >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> >> >> [...] >> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c >>> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ int ath11k_dp_srng_setup(struct ath11k_base >>> *ab, struct dp_srng *ring, >>> break; >>> } >>> /* follow through when ring_num >= 3 */ >>> + /* fall through */ >> >> Duplicate comments saying the same thing, can't you merge those? > > ath11k_check did not recognize "fall through" in the first comment > causing the initial fall through warning. It seems that fall through > comment needs to be on a separate comment to avoid getting warning > from ath11k_check. Should I get rid of first comment or leave things > how they are now? Ah, I tested this myself now and indeed GCC does not regocnise '/* fall through when ring_num >= 3 */' as a valid fallthrough comment even the recommendation implied otherwise: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html Oh well, so I guess we just need to have two comments even it's IMHO ugly. Unless someone has other ideas?
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c index e3e6b647888a..b5f710a7e915 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c @@ -739,6 +739,7 @@ static void ath11k_core_restart(struct work_struct *work) break; case ATH11K_STATE_RESTARTED: ar->state = ATH11K_STATE_WEDGED; + /* fall through */ case ATH11K_STATE_WEDGED: ath11k_warn(sc, "device is wedged, will not restart radio %d\n", i); diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c index 0aec840fc360..be10e98b0bcd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ int ath11k_dp_srng_setup(struct ath11k_base *ab, struct dp_srng *ring, break; } /* follow through when ring_num >= 3 */ + /* fall through */ case HAL_REO_EXCEPTION: case HAL_REO_REINJECT: case HAL_REO_CMD:
Marked expected switch case fall-through. Fall through warnings were generated when running ath11k-check script with --extra flag: drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c:741:14: warning: this statement may fall through Wimplicit-fallthrough=] drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c:133:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wplicit-fallthrough=] Signed-off-by: Muna Sinada <msinada@codeaurora.org> --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c | 1 + drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp.c | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)