[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLpvxcX34TgAXK7ydkSUKxiedDymF=2REcjC_7mVKpe+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:40:52 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][bpf] bpf: verifier: add break statement in switch
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:02 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
>
> Notice that in this case, it's much clearer to explicitly add a break
> rather than letting the code to fall through. It also avoid potential
> future fall-through warnings[1].
>
> This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1087056/
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
this type of changes are not suitable for bpf tree.
Pls submit both as single patch to bpf-next
Powered by blists - more mailing lists