From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
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 22:25:40 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711282220200.2222@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171128142532.Horde.i2oBtHDOaD7XV1M3yAL7rga@gator4166.hostgator.com>
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> The thing about taking 'any comment' as valid is false if you add the
> following to your Makefile:
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough)
>
> This option takes the following comments as valid:
>
> /* fall through */
> /* Fall through */
> /* fall through - ... */
> /* Fall through - ... */
>
> Comments as fallthru, fallthrough, FALLTHRU are invalid.
>
> And of course if you intentionally change the option to:
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough=1)
>
> it means that you obviously want to ignore any warning.
So I have to ask WHY this information was not in the changelog of the patch
in question:
1) How it works
2) Why comments have been chosen over macros
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> where we are expecting to fall through.
It's not a reviewers job to chase that information down.
While I can understand that the comments are intentional due to existing
tools, I still prefer the macro/annotation. But I'm not religious about it
when there is common consensus. :)
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-28 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-27 23:52 [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-28 13:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:05 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-28 18:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:22 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-28 18:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 18:53 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-28 19:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 19:00 ` Alan Cox
2017-11-28 19:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-11-28 19:59 ` Joe Perches
2017-11-28 20:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 20:34 ` Kees Cook
2017-11-28 20:37 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-29 1:07 ` Joe Perches
2017-11-29 8:20 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-11-28 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-28 20:25 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-28 21:25 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2017-11-29 15:10 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2017-11-29 15:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-11-30 0:21 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-29 23:56 Gustavo A. R. Silva
2019-01-30 0:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.20.1711282220200.2222@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=garsilva@embeddedor.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).