[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad5ec66830b502d68e6d3c814706b52490418f0f.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:18:56 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
gustavo@...eddedor.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
acme@...nel.org, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
jolsa@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch
fall-throughs
On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 19:35 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Seriously though; I detest these patches and we really, as in _really_
> should have done that attribute thing.
At least it'll be fairly easy to convert to something
sensible later.
Variants of the equivalent of:
s@/* fallthrough */@...lthrough;@
with some trivial whitespace reformatting will read
_much_ better.
It's pretty scriptable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists