Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:25:40 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs |
| |
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > The thing about taking 'any comment' as valid is false if you add the > following to your Makefile: > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough) > > This option takes the following comments as valid: > > /* fall through */ > /* Fall through */ > /* fall through - ... */ > /* Fall through - ... */ > > Comments as fallthru, fallthrough, FALLTHRU are invalid. > > And of course if you intentionally change the option to: > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wimplicit-fallthrough=1) > > it means that you obviously want to ignore any warning.
So I have to ask WHY this information was not in the changelog of the patch in question:
1) How it works
2) Why comments have been chosen over macros
> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through.
It's not a reviewers job to chase that information down.
While I can understand that the comments are intentional due to existing tools, I still prefer the macro/annotation. But I'm not religious about it when there is common consensus. :)
Thanks,
tglx
| |