lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <748935.1606147853@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:10:53 +0000 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > call->unmarshall++; > > + > > + fallthrough; > > My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough; > > > case 5: > > break; > > } My preference would be to fall through. The case number is the state machine state, as indexed by call->unmarshall. All the other cases in the switch fall through. I would also generally prefer that the fallthrough statement occur before the blank line, not after it, since it belongs with the previous clause, and not between a comment about a case statement and its associated case statement, i.e.: afs_extract_to_tmp(call); call->unmarshall++; /* extract the callback array and its count in two steps */ fallthrough; case 3: would be better written as: afs_extract_to_tmp(call); call->unmarshall++; fallthrough; /* extract the callback array and its count in two steps */ case 3: David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists