[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw5DAB6qZu4fmDTvhU-wB4zNhUGuBBdBzMnh5d=ybBj-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:10:00 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
> end of the 1970s
Yes.
That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
"default:" statements if that makes people happier.
IOW, we could do something like
#define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
and then write
fallthrough case 1:
...
which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
it makes semantic sense.
Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists