linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
Cc: 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>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:45:23 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281944010.2222@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281933170.2222@nanos>

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

+CC Linus.

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Just checked and GCC really supports analyzing the comment to some extent.
> 
> But just look at
> 
>     https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817
> 
>  " It is not really possible.  __attribute__((fallthrough)) has precise
>    rules on where it can appear, while /* FALLTHRU */ comments, being
>    comments, can appear anywhere.  Especially with -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1
>    when all comments are considered fallthru comments... "
> 
> I have no idea who came up with that brilliant idea of parsing comments in
> the code. It's so simple to make this parser completely fail that it's not
> even funny anymore.
> 
> I don't care what other people prefer. The code base I'm responsible for
> gets either proper annotations or nothing.

And in fact we want ONE solution for the whole kernel. And comments are
obviously the wrong one.

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-28 18:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-27 23:52 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 [this message]
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
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.2.20.1711281944010.2222@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=garsilva@embeddedor.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs' \
    /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

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).