Message-ID: <dc53ec8c-76e1-e487-26ae-6b34afde9ca2@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:24:31 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for
 Clang



On 4/17/21 13:29, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> On 3/10/21 3:59 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>> On 3/10/21 2:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:31:57PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>>> Hm, this conversation looks like a miscommunication, mainly? I see
>>>>>> Gustavo, as requested by many others[1], replacing the fallthrough
>>>>>> comments with the "fallthrough" statement. (This is more than just a
>>>>>> "Clang doesn't parse comments" issue.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This could be a tree-wide patch and not bother you, but Greg KH has
>>>>>> generally advised us to send these changes broken out. Anyway, this
>>>>>> change still needs to land, so what would be the preferred path? I think
>>>>>> Gustavo could just carry it for Linus to merge without bothering you if
>>>>>> that'd be preferred?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll respond with the same I did last time, fallthrough is not C and
>>>>> it's ugly.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your point of view, but this is not the consensus[1] of
>>>> the community. "fallthrough" is a macro, using the GCC fallthrough
>>>> attribute, with the expectation that we can move to the C17/C18
>>>> "[[fallthrough]]" statement once it is finalized by the C standards
>>>> body.
>>>
>>> I don't know who decided on that, but I still disagree. It's an ugly and
>>> pointless change that serves little purpose. We shouldn't have allowed
>>> the ugly /* fall-through */ comments in either, but at least they didn't
>>> mess with the code. I guess when you give someone an inch, they take a mile.
>>>
>>> Last time this came up, the discussion was that clang refused to fix
>>> their brokenness and therefore this nonsense was being pushed into the
>>> kernel. It's still a pointless argument, if clang can't fix it's crap,
>>> then stop using it.
>>>
>>> As Kalle correctly pointed out, none of the previous comments to this
>>> were addressed, the patches were just reposted as fact. Not exactly a
>>> nice way to go about it either.
>>
>> Do you mean changing the commit log to re-justify these changes? I
>> guess that could be done, but based on the thread, it didn't seem to
>> be needed. The change is happening to match the coding style consensus
>> reached to give the kernel the flexibility to move from a gcc extension
>> to the final C standards committee results without having to do treewide
>> commits again (i.e. via the macro).
> 
> No, I am questioning why Gustavo continues to push this nonsense that
> serves no purpose whatsoever. In addition he has consistently ignored
> comments and just keep reposting it. But I guess that is how it works,
> ignore feedback, repost junk, repeat.

I was asking for feedback here[1] and here[2] after people (you and Kalle)
commented on this patch. How is that ignoring people? And -again- why
people ignored my requests for feedback in this conversation? It's a mystery
to me, honestly.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201124160906.GB17735@embeddedor/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e10b2a6a-d91a-9783-ddbe-ea2c10a1539a@embeddedor.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists