| From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 001/141] afs: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang | Date | Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:10:53 +0000 |
| |
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
|