linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/41] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <304bd094-7079-3a90-4901-9c86833d49e2@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:47:05 -0600
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/41] scsi: NCR5380: Mark expected switch fall-through

Hi Michael,

On 11/28/18 2:22 AM, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> I believe the 'if we get something weird' comment block relates to the
> default branch of the switch, _not_ the fall through from the case above
> (extended message received that we end up rejecting). Ordering the
> comments like you did just for GCC's sake is misleading.
> 
> The comment block should perhaps be moved after the default label. And
> it would be nice if the reason for the fall through could be retained in
> the comment.
> 

Oh Okay. I'll do that.

Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo