From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:29:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4eb49b08-09bb-d1d2-d2bc-efcd5f7406fe@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202103101254.1DBEE1082@keescook>
On 3/10/21 3:59 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 3/10/21 2:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:31:57PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> Hm, this conversation looks like a miscommunication, mainly? I see
>>>>> Gustavo, as requested by many others[1], replacing the fallthrough
>>>>> comments with the "fallthrough" statement. (This is more than just a
>>>>> "Clang doesn't parse comments" issue.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This could be a tree-wide patch and not bother you, but Greg KH has
>>>>> generally advised us to send these changes broken out. Anyway, this
>>>>> change still needs to land, so what would be the preferred path? I think
>>>>> Gustavo could just carry it for Linus to merge without bothering you if
>>>>> that'd be preferred?
>>>>
>>>> I'll respond with the same I did last time, fallthrough is not C and
>>>> it's ugly.
>>>
>>> I understand your point of view, but this is not the consensus[1] of
>>> the community. "fallthrough" is a macro, using the GCC fallthrough
>>> attribute, with the expectation that we can move to the C17/C18
>>> "[[fallthrough]]" statement once it is finalized by the C standards
>>> body.
>>
>> I don't know who decided on that, but I still disagree. It's an ugly and
>> pointless change that serves little purpose. We shouldn't have allowed
>> the ugly /* fall-through */ comments in either, but at least they didn't
>> mess with the code. I guess when you give someone an inch, they take a mile.
>>
>> Last time this came up, the discussion was that clang refused to fix
>> their brokenness and therefore this nonsense was being pushed into the
>> kernel. It's still a pointless argument, if clang can't fix it's crap,
>> then stop using it.
>>
>> As Kalle correctly pointed out, none of the previous comments to this
>> were addressed, the patches were just reposted as fact. Not exactly a
>> nice way to go about it either.
>
> Do you mean changing the commit log to re-justify these changes? I
> guess that could be done, but based on the thread, it didn't seem to
> be needed. The change is happening to match the coding style consensus
> reached to give the kernel the flexibility to move from a gcc extension
> to the final C standards committee results without having to do treewide
> commits again (i.e. via the macro).
No, I am questioning why Gustavo continues to push this nonsense that
serves no purpose whatsoever. In addition he has consistently ignored
comments and just keep reposting it. But I guess that is how it works,
ignore feedback, repost junk, repeat.
Jes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-17 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-05 9:48 [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-03-05 13:40 ` Kalle Valo
2021-03-05 16:49 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-03-10 19:14 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-10 19:31 ` Jes Sorensen
2021-03-10 19:45 ` Kees Cook
2021-03-10 19:51 ` Jes Sorensen
2021-03-10 20:59 ` Kees Cook
2021-04-17 18:29 ` Jes Sorensen [this message]
2021-04-17 19:24 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-04-19 11:58 ` Jes Sorensen
2021-03-11 7:00 ` Kalle Valo
2021-03-11 7:16 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2021-04-17 17:52 ` Kalle Valo
[not found] ` <20210417175201.2D5A7C433F1@smtp.codeaurora.org>
2021-04-17 18:30 ` Jes Sorensen
2021-04-18 0:09 ` Joe Perches
2021-04-19 11:56 ` Jes Sorensen
[not found] ` <20210417175201.280F9C4338A@smtp.codeaurora.org>
2021-04-19 22:58 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
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=4eb49b08-09bb-d1d2-d2bc-efcd5f7406fe@gmail.com \
--to=jes.sorensen@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.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).