[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87po9touj7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:32:44 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>
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
Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com> writes:
> 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.
We do receive quite a lot these kind of cleanup patches found with
various analysers and tools. I guess one could classify those as churn
but I think the net result is still very much on the positive side. And
this patch in particular seems useful for me and I think we should take
it.
--
Kalle Valo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists