On 17/02/2020 10.38, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 13/02/2020 13.56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't this be /* fall through */ instead? >>> >>> Gustavo, what's the best practice here, I count only a few >>> "fallthrough;" instances in the kernel, although one is in our coding >>> style document, and thousands of the /* */ version. >> >> Yes, I went with the attribute/macro due to that, and the history is >> that Linus applied Joe's patches directly >> (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whOF8heTGz5tfzYUBp_UQQzSWNJ_50M7-ECXkfFRDQWFA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/), >> so I assumed that meant the Penguin decided that the attribute/macro is >> the right thing to do for new code, while existing comment annotations >> can be left alone or changed piecemeal as code gets refactored anyway. > > But, to be fair, Gustavo went and fixed up thousands of these, with the > /* */ version, not the attribute. > > Gustavo, can coverity notice the "fallthrough;" attribute properly? I > don't want to start adding things that end up triggering > false-positives. I'm not Gustavo, and I don't know the answer, but 1.5 years ago some guy named greg k-h suggested that coverity does grok the fallthrough attribute: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10651357/#22279095 Rasmus
