linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:34:51 -0400
From:   Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>>> where we are expecting to fall through.
>>
>> While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn
>> for zero gain and it's just ugly.
> 
> In general I find it useful to mark fall through cases. And it's just a
> comment with two words, so they cannot hurt your eyes that much.

I don't see them being harmful in the code, but I don't see them of much 
use either. If it happened as part of natural code development, fine. My 
objection is to people running around doing this systematically causing 
patch churn for little to zero gain.

Jes