Re: [PATCH] eal/x86: implement x86 specific tsc hz

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:38:08AM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:00 PM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/x86: implement x86 specific tsc hz
> > > 
<snip>
> > +
> > > +static uint32_t
> > > +check_model_wsm_nhm(uint8_t model)
> > > +{
> > > +	switch (model) {
> > > +	/* Westmere */
> > > +	case 0x25:
> > > +	case 0x2C:
> > > +	case 0x2F:
> > > +	/* Nehalem */
> > > +	case 0x1E:
> > > +	case 0x1F:
> > > +	case 0x1A:
> > > +	case 0x2E:
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > DPDK coding standards say /* fallthrough */ comments required when falling through cases.
> > In this case I feel it would reduce readability, more than it improves it, but I recall
> > some recent gcc/clang prints warnings if no /* fallthrough */ comments exist.. opinions?
> > 
> > Same for switch() below.
> >
> 
> I see no warnings in this case with gcc 7.x. I don't think it counts as
> a fallthrough unless there is code after the label - i.e. multiple
> labels though technically fallthrough are treated as such by compiler.
> 
apologies, typo: ... are NOT treated as such ...