On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 01:11:19PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2023, Max Filippov wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 1:18 AM Damien Zammit <dam...@zamaudio.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing this on a weekend! > > > > > > On 26/2/23 19:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 01:58:10AM +0000, Damien Zammit wrote: > > > > > case 0: > > > > > - out = (d >= s->count); > > > > > - break; > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you need something like > > > > /* FALLTHRU */ > > > > here otherwise some gcc versions will warn. > > > > > > > > > case 1: > > > > > - out = (d < s->count); > > > > > + out = (d >= s->count); > > > > > > It seems that there are quite a number of these consecutive fallthrough > > > cases > > > without /* FALLTHRU */ in i8254_common.c > > > > > > Can these be fixed in a separate patch? > > > > I believe that the comment is only needed when there's code > > between the labels and is not needed between the labels that > > follow each other. > > I think so too, I have some of these consecutive case labels in my code and > never had a problem with that. Only when you have a statement between labels > without break is when a comment is needed. > > Regards, > BALATON Zoltan
I just tried and it looks like you are right. Pls ignore sorry about the noise. -- MST
