[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200309064806.GB46830@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 15:48:06 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Use fallthrough;
On (20/03/09 15:20), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > <shrug, maybe> I've no real opinion about that necessity.
> >
> > fallthrough commments are relatively rarely used as a
> > separating element between case labels.
> >
> > It's by far most common to just have consecutive case labels
> > without any other content.
> >
> > It's somewhere between 500:1 to 1000:1 in the kernel.
>
> I thought that those labels were used by some static code analysis
> tools, so that the removal of some labels raised questions. But I
> don't think I have opinions otherwise.
... I guess GCC counts as a static code analysis tool :)
Looking at previous commits, people wanted to have proper 'fall through'
Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
-Wimplicit-fallthrough
---
- case ZPOOL_MM_RW: /* fallthru */
+ case ZPOOL_MM_RW: /* fall through */
---
> Consecutive case labels do not need an interleaving fallthrough;
I suppose this means that GCC -Wimplicit-fallthrough handles it?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists