Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:59:54 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1511899194.19952.43.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw5DAB6qZu4fmDTvhU-wB4zNhUGuBBdBzMnh5d=ybBj-g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 11:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
> > end of the 1970s
> 
> Yes.
> 
> That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
> "default:" statements if that makes people happier.
> 
> IOW, we could do something like
> 
>     #define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
> 
> and then write
> 
>     fallthrough case 1:
>         ...
> 
> which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
> logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
> it makes semantic sense.
> 
> Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?

I don't

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485