On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:58:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > /* fall through */ > > > > > > for all of them would be pretty annoying. > > > > agreed, but with that example, it seems pretty obvious (to me at least) > > that the lack of break's is intentional. Where it gets trickier to > > make quick judgment calls is cases like the one I mentioned above, > > where there are only a few cases, and there's real code involved in > > some but not all cases. > > > > I fully agree and have code in the oom killer that has the "fall through" > comment if there's code in between the case statements, but I think things > like > > case MPOL_BIND: > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE: > ... > > is quite easy to read. I don't feel strongly at all, though, so I'll just > leave it to Andrew's preference. I've never even thought about it, but that won't prevent me from pretending otherwise! How about: This: case WIBBLE: something(); something_else(); case WOBBLE: needs a /* fall through */ comment (because it *looks* like a mistake), whereas case WIBBLE: case WOBBLE: does not? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>