Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "lib: Revert use of fallthrough pseudo-keyword in lib/"

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Revert "lib: Revert use of fallthrough pseudo-keyword in lib/"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:45:26 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201117234526.GA7807@embeddedor> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdmNW3iynqi_+2c1P-6Prq1a8iVufoaZh2NAbsaBLeZZ4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 02:28:43PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:16 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <gustavoars@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm happy to take this series in my tree.  I'm planing to send a
> > pull-request for -rc5 with more related changes. So, I can include
> > this in the same PR.
> >
> > In the meantime I'll add this to my testing tree, so it can be
> > build-tested by the 0-day folks. :)
> 
> SGTM, and thank you.  I'm sure you saw the existing warning about
> indentation.  Do we want to modify the revert patch, or put another
> patch on top?

In this case, it'd be much better to modify the revert patch. I also
saw someone made a comment to the first patch of the series. If you
can address both issues and send v2 it'd be great.  Anyways, as those
are trivial changes, I already added the series to my testing tree for
0-day build-testing.

Thanks
--
Gustavo