[PATCH] Smack: Mark expected switch fall-through

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "No break" with a
proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
to find.

Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>
---
 security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
index ad45761..a307b00 100644
--- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
+++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c

@@ -3739,7 +3739,7 @@ static void smack_d_instantiate(struct dentry *opt_dentry, struct inode *inode)
 		 */
 		final = &smack_known_star;
 		/*
-		 * No break.
+		 * Fall through.
 		 *
 		 * If a smack value has been set we want to use it,
 		 * but since tmpfs isn't giving us the opportunity

-- 
2.7.4

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 8/1/2018 3:38 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
where we are expecting to fall through.

Notice that in this particular case, I replaced "No break" with a
proper "Fall through" annotation, which is what GCC is expecting
to find.

Holy bikeshedding, Batman! For decades I've seen "no break" as
the proper way to warn that the lack of a "break;" is intentional.
I suppose that "Fall through" makes just as much sense. Grumble.

Warning level 2 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 115051 ("Missing break in switch")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <redacted>

Sure, I'll take this for 4.20 as my 4.19 changes are complete
and there doesn't seem to be special urgency.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html