On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:40:33PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix >>> multiple warnings by replacing /* fall through */ comments with >>> the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough; instead of letting the >>> code fall through to the next case. >>> >>> Notice that Clang doesn't recognize /* fall through */ comments as >>> implicit fall-through markings. >>> >>> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115 >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> It's not cool that you ignore the comments you got in [1], then after a >> while mark the patch as "RESEND" and not even include a changelog why it >> was resent. >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/d522f387b2d0dde774785c7169c1f25aa529989d.1605896060.git.gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Hm, this conversation looks like a miscommunication, mainly? I see > Gustavo, as requested by many others[1], replacing the fallthrough > comments with the "fallthrough" statement. (This is more than just a > "Clang doesn't parse comments" issue.) > > This could be a tree-wide patch and not bother you, but Greg KH has > generally advised us to send these changes broken out. Anyway, this > change still needs to land, so what would be the preferred path? I think > Gustavo could just carry it for Linus to merge without bothering you if > that'd be preferred? I'll respond with the same I did last time, fallthrough is not C and it's ugly. Instead of mutilating the kernel, Gustavo should invest in fixing the broken clang compiler. Thanks, Jes
