| Message ID | 20181012161236.GA21768@embeddedor.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/radeon/r300: Mark expected switch fall-throughs | expand |
On 10/12/18 7:29 PM, Alex Deucher wrote: > This and the r420 patch applied. Thanks! > Thanks, Alex. :) -- Gustavo
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c index 21161aa..652126f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c @@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ static int r300_packet0_check(struct radeon_cs_parser *p, ((idx_value >> 21) & 0xF)); return -EINVAL; } - /* Pass through. */ + /* Fall through. */ case 6: track->cb[i].cpp = 4; break; @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@ static int r300_packet0_check(struct radeon_cs_parser *p, return -EINVAL; } /* The same rules apply as for DXT3/5. */ - /* Pass through. */ + /* Fall through. */ case R300_TX_FORMAT_DXT3: case R300_TX_FORMAT_DXT5: track->textures[i].cpp = 1;
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "Pass through." with "Fall through.", which is what GCC is expecting to find. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114734 ("Missing break in switch") Addresses-Coverity-ID: 114735 ("Missing break in switch") Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)