netdev - Re: [PATCH] wireless: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3d764be1-cf8e-b1f0-1f4d-765ca3435174@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:07:12 +0200
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: mark expected switch fall-throughs



On 7/6/18 2:29 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Gustavo,
> 
>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
>> where we are expecting to fall through.
> 
> You dropped the remark saying you didn't review them, but did you?
> 

I'll add it in v2.

>>  	case NL80211_CHAN_WIDTH_20:
>>  		if (!ht_cap->ht_supported)
>>  			return false;
>> +		/* else: fall through */
> 
> What's the point in else:?
> 
> We also don't necessarily write
> 
> if (!...)
>   return false;
> else
>   do_something();
> 
> but rather
> 
> if (!...)
>   return false;
> do_something().
> 
> I think I'd prefer without the "else:"
> 

Sure thing. I'll change this in v2.

I'll send v2 shortly.

Thanks for the feedback.
--
Gustavo