Re: [PATCH 6/9] usb: host: isp1362-hcd: mark expected switch fall-through

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:05:05PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > Greg,
> >
> > Quoting "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > > where we are expecting to fall through.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c  
> > b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> > > index 9b7e307..753d576 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/isp1362-hcd.c
> > > @@ -1578,6 +1578,7 @@ static int isp1362_hub_control(struct usb_hcd
> > > *hcd, u16 typeReq, u16 wValue,
> > >  			spin_lock_irqsave(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags);
> > >  			isp1362_write_reg32(isp1362_hcd, HCRHSTATUS, RH_HS_OCIC);
> > >  			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&isp1362_hcd->lock, flags);
> > > +			/* fall through */
> >
> > I'm suspicious this should be a 'break' instead.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Yeah, this should be a 'break', care to make that patch up instead?

Sure thing.

Just some questions about the process to follow:

Should I send a v2 replying to this particular thread only? like  
[PATCH v2 6/9]
or should I send just a new patch separated from this patch series? I  
guess this is the case.

Some maintainers have told me that in cases where a particular patch  
in the series needs an update, the complete
patchset should be sent again. But I think that depends on the  
functional impact the patch has over the whole patchset.

Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva