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: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> Acked-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
98ed1e642c
commit
d331e75897
@ -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;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user