[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b93bbb17b407e27bb1dc196af84e4f289d9dfd93.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:35:31 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: sctp: Rename fallthrough label to unhandled
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of
> > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc
> > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate
> > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the
> > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else?
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > I sent after this a patch that adds
> >
> > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__))
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/
> >
> > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define.
> >
> why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other
> attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception,
> etc)
Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists