linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Add 'fallthrough' pseudo keyword for switch/case use

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20190802123418.GA3722@amd>
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:34:18 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] compiler_attributes.h: Add 'fallthrough' pseudo
 keyword for switch/case use

On Fri 2019-08-02 07:00:42, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:26:29PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:10 PM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not disagreeing... I think using a macro makes sense.
> > 
> > It is either a macro or waiting for 5+ years (while we keep using the
> > comment style) :-)
> > 
> > In case it helps to make one's mind about whether to go for it or not,
> > I summarized the advantages and a few other details in the patch I
> > sent in October:
> > 
> >   https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/668f011a2706ea555987e263f609a5deba9c7fc4
> > 
> > It would be nice, however, to discuss whether we want __fallthrough or
> > fallthrough. The former is consistent with the rest of compiler
> > attributes and makes it clear it is not a keyword, the latter is
> > consistent with "break", "goto" and "return", as Joe's patch explains.
> > 
> I was having this conversation with Joe, and I agree, I like the idea of
> macroing up the fall through attribute, but naming it __fallthrough seems more
> consistent to me with the other attribute macros.  I also feel like its more
> recognizable as a macro.  Naming it fallthrough just makes it look like someone
> forgot to put /**/'s around it to me.

I like the "fallthrough". It looks like "return" and it should, no
need to have __'s there..
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)