On Sat, 2021-04-17 at 14:30 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 4/17/21 1:52 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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> > > > > Patch applied to wireless-drivers-next.git, thanks. > > > > bf3365a856a1 rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang > > > > Sorry this junk patch should not have been applied. I don't believe it's a junk patch. I believe your characterization of it as such is flawed. You don't like the style, that's fine, but: Any code in the kernel should not be a unique style of your own choosing when it could cause various compilers to emit unnecessary warnings. Please remember the kernel code base is a formed by a community with a nominally generally accepted style. There is a real desire in that community to both enable compiler warnings that might show defects and simultaneously avoid unnecessary compiler warnings. This particular change just avoids a possible compiler warning.
