[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7218c13d-d8bc-10dd-cc91-9e9d5f30ed45@embeddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:32:08 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: mark expected switch fall-through
>
> Right. That's because we've used MISSING_CASE() also in if-ladders in
> addition to the switch default case. From our POV the usage is similar.
>
Yep.
> *shrug*
>
> I guess I like /* fall through */ annotations next to MISSING_CASE()
> better than having two different macros depending on where they're being
> used.
>
OK. I'll send a patch for the whole i915 subsystem, shortly.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists