Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 01:16:17 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang



On 3/11/21 01:00, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix
>>>> multiple warnings by replacing /* fall through */ comments with
>>>> the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough; instead of letting the
>>>> code fall through to the next case.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that Clang doesn't recognize /* fall through */ comments as
>>>> implicit fall-through markings.
>>>>
>>>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> It's not cool that you ignore the comments you got in [1], then after a
>>> while mark the patch as "RESEND" and not even include a changelog why it
>>> was resent.
>>>
>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/d522f387b2d0dde774785c7169c1f25aa529989d.1605896060.git.gustavoars@kernel.org/
>>
>> 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.)
> 
> v1 was clearly rejected by Jes, so sending a new version without any
> changelog or comments is not the way to go. The changelog shoud at least
> have had "v1 was rejected but I'm resending this again because <insert
> reason here>" or something like that to make it clear what's happening.

Why the fact that I replied to that original thread with the message
below is being ignored?

"Just notice that the idea behind this and the following patch is exactly
the same:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=3f95e92c8a8516b745594049dfccc8c5f8895eea

I could resend this same patch with a different changelog text, but I
don't think such a thing is necessary. However, if people prefer that
approach, just let me know and I can do it.

Thanks
--
Gustavo"

Why no one replied to what I was proposing at the time?

It seems to me that the person that was ignored was actually me, and not the
other way around. :/

--
Gustavo

> 
>> 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 agree with Greg. Please don't do cleanups like this via another tree
> as that just creates more work due to conflicts between the trees, which
> is a lot more annoying to deal with than applying few patches. But when
> submitting patches please follow the rules, don't cut corners.
> 
> Jes, I don't like 'fallthrough' either and prefer the original comment,
> but the ship has sailed on this one. Maybe we should just take it?
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists