From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753788AbdK1TKD (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:10:03 -0500
Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com ([209.85.223.176]:45520 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751427AbdK1TKB (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:10:01 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbHvKoYY36KtSX6eomEPlYzqQJXJqxV50IijqfmOUmNP+3U0gQA/z40ikkc7ku0u2s6F4a8sNMPWwB2oOmQjoc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171128190032.2b1fa464@alans-desktop>
References: <20171127235253.GA20384@embeddedor.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281448520.1723@nanos>
 <20171128120512.Horde.1mz61Up1PsNtyHbrjWmK8L7@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281908040.2222@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281911280.2222@nanos>
 <20171128122235.Horde.vFP-9ZfAP0f9BFNePB8Z8xi@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281924080.2222@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281933170.2222@nanos>
 <20171128190032.2b1fa464@alans-desktop>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:10:00 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: K-veViNK2f-tHS_b_m2pm9JB1fQ
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw5DAB6qZu4fmDTvhU-wB4zNhUGuBBdBzMnh5d=ybBj-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
To: 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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?

             Linus