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>
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;
}