netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: 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: <20190214232122.GS10129@piout.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:21:22 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com,
        linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mark expected switch fall-throughs

On 14/02/2019 17:14:05-0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >>> Also, the gcc documentation says that -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3
> >>> recognizes /* fallthrough */ as a proper fall through comment (and I
> >>> tested with gcc 8.2).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah. But that's not the relevant change in this case.  Notice that the
> >> comment was moved to the very bottom of the previous case.
> >>
> > 
> > Yes and it doesn't matter for gcc, I tested with gcc 8.2.
> > 
> 
> Yeah. But, again, you are missing the relevant part of the patch.
> 

Right, I misread the patch and though you were moving the comment after
the case statement.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com