lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
Date
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:

> >   call->unmarshall++;
> > +
> > + fallthrough;
>
> My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
>
> >   case 5:
> >   break;
> >   }

My preference would be to fall through. The case number is the state machine
state, as indexed by call->unmarshall. All the other cases in the switch fall
through.

I would also generally prefer that the fallthrough statement occur before the
blank line, not after it, since it belongs with the previous clause, and not
between a comment about a case statement and its associated case statement,
i.e.:

afs_extract_to_tmp(call);
call->unmarshall++;

/* extract the callback array and its count in two steps */
fallthrough;
case 3:

would be better written as:

afs_extract_to_tmp(call);
call->unmarshall++;
fallthrough;

/* extract the callback array and its count in two steps */
case 3:

David

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-23 17:39    [W:1.808 / U:1.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site