On 4/17/21 13:29, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 3/10/21 3:59 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>> On 3/10/21 2:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:31:57PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote: >>>>> On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I understand your point of view, but this is not the consensus[1] of >>>> the community. "fallthrough" is a macro, using the GCC fallthrough >>>> attribute, with the expectation that we can move to the C17/C18 >>>> "[[fallthrough]]" statement once it is finalized by the C standards >>>> body. >>> >>> I don't know who decided on that, but I still disagree. It's an ugly and >>> pointless change that serves little purpose. We shouldn't have allowed >>> the ugly /* fall-through */ comments in either, but at least they didn't >>> mess with the code. I guess when you give someone an inch, they take a mile. >>> >>> Last time this came up, the discussion was that clang refused to fix >>> their brokenness and therefore this nonsense was being pushed into the >>> kernel. It's still a pointless argument, if clang can't fix it's crap, >>> then stop using it. >>> >>> As Kalle correctly pointed out, none of the previous comments to this >>> were addressed, the patches were just reposted as fact. Not exactly a >>> nice way to go about it either. >> >> Do you mean changing the commit log to re-justify these changes? I >> guess that could be done, but based on the thread, it didn't seem to >> be needed. The change is happening to match the coding style consensus >> reached to give the kernel the flexibility to move from a gcc extension >> to the final C standards committee results without having to do treewide >> commits again (i.e. via the macro). > > No, I am questioning why Gustavo continues to push this nonsense that > serves no purpose whatsoever. In addition he has consistently ignored > comments and just keep reposting it. But I guess that is how it works, > ignore feedback, repost junk, repeat. I was asking for feedback here[1] and here[2] after people (you and Kalle) commented on this patch. How is that ignoring people? And -again- why people ignored my requests for feedback in this conversation? It's a mystery to me, honestly. Thanks -- Gustavo [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201124160906.GB17735@embeddedor/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e10b2a6a-d91a-9783-ddbe-ea2c10a1539a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
