[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a9d003ddd0d59fb144db3ecda3453b3d9c0cb139.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:42:31 -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 Thu, 2019-08-01 at 06:50 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> You can say that if you want, but you made the point that your think the macro
> as you have written is more readable. You example illustrates though that /*
> fallthrough */ is a pretty common comment, and not prefixing it makes it look
> like someone didn't add a comment that they meant to. The __ prefix is standard
> practice for defining macros to attributes (212 instances of it by my count). I
> don't mind rewriting the goto labels at all, but I think consistency is
> valuable.
Hey Neil.
Perhaps you want to make this argument on the RFC patch thread
that introduces the fallthrough pseudo-keyword.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists