From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:21:00 -0500
>
> Quoting David Miller :
>
>> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
>> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500
>>
>>> @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct
>>> work_struct *work)
>>> case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
>>
Quoting David Miller :
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500
@@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct
work_struct *work)
case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
sk->sk_state =
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500
> @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct
> *work)
> case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
> if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
> sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2;
> -
In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.
Notice that in this particular case I placed a "fall through" comment on
its own line, which is what GCC is expecting to find.
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
net/smc/smc_close.c
