Messages in this thread | | | From | Kalle Valo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang | Date | Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:00:03 +0200 |
| |
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> writes: >> >> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix >> > multiple warnings by replacing /* fall through */ comments with >> > the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough; instead of letting the >> > code fall through to the next case. >> > >> > Notice that Clang doesn't recognize /* fall through */ comments as >> > implicit fall-through markings. >> > >> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 >> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> >> >> It's not cool that you ignore the comments you got in [1], then after a >> while mark the patch as "RESEND" and not even include a changelog why it >> was resent. >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/d522f387b2d0dde774785c7169c1f25aa529989d.1605896060.git.gustavoars@kernel.org/ > > 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.)
v1 was clearly rejected by Jes, so sending a new version without any changelog or comments is not the way to go. The changelog shoud at least have had "v1 was rejected but I'm resending this again because <insert reason here>" or something like that to make it clear what's happening.
> 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 agree with Greg. Please don't do cleanups like this via another tree as that just creates more work due to conflicts between the trees, which is a lot more annoying to deal with than applying few patches. But when submitting patches please follow the rules, don't cut corners.
Jes, I don't like 'fallthrough' either and prefer the original comment, but the ship has sailed on this one. Maybe we should just take it?
-- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
| |