[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1507744033.3552.55.camel@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:47:13 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 12:54 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> > Sent: 11 October 2017 11:21
> > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
> > perhaps use Arnaldo's idea:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/9/845
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485
>
> gah, that is even uglier and requires a chase through
> headers to find out what it means.
Sure, if you think __fallthrough; isn't self-documenting.
case foo;
bar;
__fallthrough;
case baz;
etc...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists