On 3/11/21 01:00, Kalle Valo wrote: > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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.) > > v1 was clearly rejected by Jes, so sending a new version without any > changelog or comments is not the way to go. The changelog shoud at least > have had "v1 was rejected but I'm resending this again because <insert > reason here>" or something like that to make it clear what's happening. Why the fact that I replied to that original thread with the message below is being ignored? "Just notice that the idea behind this and the following patch is exactly the same: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=3f95e92c8a8516b745594049dfccc8c5f8895eea I could resend this same patch with a different changelog text, but I don't think such a thing is necessary. However, if people prefer that approach, just let me know and I can do it. Thanks -- Gustavo" Why no one replied to what I was proposing at the time? It seems to me that the person that was ignored was actually me, and not the other way around. :/ -- Gustavo > >> 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 agree with Greg. Please don't do cleanups like this via another tree > as that just creates more work due to conflicts between the trees, which > is a lot more annoying to deal with than applying few patches. But when > submitting patches please follow the rules, don't cut corners. > > Jes, I don't like 'fallthrough' either and prefer the original comment, > but the ship has sailed on this one. Maybe we should just take it? >
