netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

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: <20171022.020835.2065879880300400886.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 22 Oct 2017 02:08:35 +0100 (WEST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     garsilva@...eddedor.com
Cc:     ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500

> @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  	case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
>  		if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
>  			sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2;
> -		/* fall through to check for closing */
> +		/* to check for closing */
> +		/* fall through */

Gustavo please look at what you are doing to the code.

This was a nice easy to read sentence in the comment, and now
you've chopped it up into two pieces and made it awkward and
more difficult to read.