Hi, On 8/1/2023 2:54 PM, Ruan Jinjie wrote: > Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the > new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through > > Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: > - Update the subject and commit message. According to the section "How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. bpf-next) my patch should be applied to" in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst, the subject prefix should be [PATCH bpf-next]. > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 4 ++-- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > index a543742cd7bd..0fd08172965a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void verify_success(struct kfunc_test_params *param) > case syscall_test: > topts.ctx_in = &args; > topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > - /* fallthrough */ > + fallthrough; > case syscall_null_ctx_test: > break; > case tc_test: > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void verify_fail(struct kfunc_test_params *param) > case syscall_test: > topts.ctx_in = &args; > topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > - /* fallthrough */ > + fallthrough; > case syscall_null_ctx_test: > break; > case tc_test: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > index 66b304982245..f97960759558 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(buf_t *pkt, > case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: > *is_fragment = true; > /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; The build of test_progs failed as shown below. Have you tested your patch locally ? progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: In file included from progs/test_cls_redirect_subprogs.cerror: :2: use of undeclared identifier 'fallthrough' progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: error: use of undeclared identifier 'fallthrough' fallthrough; ^ fallthrough; ^ > > case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: > case IPPROTO_ROUTING: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > index f41c81212ee9..54dbf307c692 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(struct bpf_dynptr *dynptr, __u64 *of > case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: > *is_fragment = true; > /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; > > case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: > case IPPROTO_ROUTING: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index 31f1c935cd07..5621a4e0a1be 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, > printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); > return 0; > } > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; > default: > printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", > strerror(saved_errno));
