On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 03:12:21PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > 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 I wouldn't trust anything that bum says :) Ok, I don't remember saying that at all, but I'll wait a day or two to get Gustavo's opinion befor applying the patch. thanks, greg k-h
