[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25892.1533201142@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 10:12:22 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> + /* Fall through */
> no_msw:
> /* extract the returned data length */
> case 2:
That would appear to be added in the wrong place. The fall-through is after
the no_msw label.
> +
> + /* Fall through */
> no_volname_padding:
Ditto - and several other dittos too.
> - /* Done */
> + /* Fall through - Done */
Yuck.
> +
> + /* fall through */
Capital 'F' for consistency please.
Whilst I understand the argument for explicitly marking the fall-throughs to
catch missing breaks, it's a bit irritating at times. Can we have an
additional annotation that tells the compiler that every case in a switch
statement is going to fall through (so no break before case) except the last?
That would be more useful in this case.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists