Hi! Sorry for the late reply. I wasn't aware of this thread until now. Please, see my comments below... On 2/17/20 08:18, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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. > We are good to go with the 'fallthrough' pseudo keyword. Linus is OK with that. The comment annotations will eventually be transformed to "fallthrough;" Thanks -- Gustavo
