[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40493bf4256c4b62b211e2e60fa7f8b8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:49:12 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Joe Perches' <joe@...ches.com>,
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" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: sctp: Rename fallthrough label to unhandled
From: Joe Perches
> Sent: 01 August 2019 18:43
> 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/
ISTM that the only place where you need something other than the
traditional comment is inside a #define where (almost certainly)
the comments have to get stripped too early.
Adding a 'fallthough' as unknown C keyword sucks...
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists