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

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
> > > To be honest, such comments annoy me during a code review especially when
> > > the fallthrough is so obvious as in this case. There might be cases where
> > > its worth to document because it's non obvious, but documenting the
> > > obvious
> > > just for the sake of documenting it is just wrong.
> > 
> 
> I understand that and I agree that in this particular case it is just obvious.
> The thing is that if we want to benefit from having the compiler help us to
> spot these kind of issues before committing our code, we have to address every
> place in the whole code-base.
> 
> > And _IF_ at all then you want a fixed macro for this and not a comment
> > which will be formatted as people see it fit.
> > 
> > GCC supports: __attribute__ ((fallthrough)) which we can wrap into a macro,
> > e.g. falltrough()
> > 
> > That'd be useful, but adding all these comments and then having to chase a
> > gazillion of warning instances to figure out whether there is a comment or
> > not is just backwards.
> > 
> 
> I have run into this before and people find what you suggest even uglier.

It's not about ugly. It's about _USEFULL_.

The comments are ugly AND completely useless for the compiler and they are
going to be malformatted so checker tools can't differentiate the false
positives.

The macro, in which more or less ugly form written, is both documentation
and helps the compiler NOT to emit the same crap over and over.

Thanks,

	tglx