[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200817130227.GI549@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:02:27 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <kernel.org@...eddedor>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 03:03:03PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments and its variants with
> the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. Also, remove unnecessary
> fall-through markings when it is the case.
>
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through
...
> @@ -362,7 +361,6 @@ static short get_segment_selector(struct pt_regs *regs, int seg_reg_idx)
> case INAT_SEG_REG_GS:
> return vm86regs->gs;
> case INAT_SEG_REG_IGNORE:
> - /* fall through */
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -386,7 +384,6 @@ static short get_segment_selector(struct pt_regs *regs, int seg_reg_idx)
> */
> return get_user_gs(regs);
> case INAT_SEG_REG_IGNORE:
> - /* fall through */
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
What's the logic for those two to not get a fallthrough; marker?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists