On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:18:40 -0400, Nick Krause said: > >> >>> case 3: >> >>> pm |= CCR_PM_USBPW3; >> >>> + break; >> >>> case 2: >> >>> pm |= CCR_PM_USBPW2; >> >>> + break; >> >>> case 1: >> >>> pm |= CCR_PM_USBPW1; >> >>> + break; > >> I understand that too but this patch works and builds I have tested it >> completely. > > No, you haven't. Far from it. > > If you were testing it "completely", you would have found an actual Toshiba > Mobile or other hardware that uses this driver, and had logs to show how it > used to misbehave due to this bug, and that it worked correctly now. > > And you would have noticed, and explained, why the #defines for > CCR_PM_USBPW2 and CCR_PM_USBPW3 are the same value. In fact, that's > why the compiler whined, *not* because of the missing break; code. So > sticking in breaks and not even mentioning the #defines shows that you > did ABSOLUTELY ZERO to actually understand what the compiler was telling you. > > Note that there's perfectly valid reasons for fall-through in a C switch - > see Tom Duff for a classic example (yes, Dennis Ritchie said it was valid C): > > http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/duffs-device.html > > The #defines could possibly be intentionally that way if the chip is weird and > uses 2 pins to control 3 ports in a non-intuitive way - and if they're > active-low bits even the lack of break; after the default: warning case could > be proper, disabling all ports if an invalid one is specified. > > And there's no indication you even *bothered* to check that possibility - which > would mean applying your patch would break a properly written driver. > > And even worse, there's no indication you actually understood what the > compile warning was telling you. > >> Look I got off on the wrong start and I am starting to improve my repo but seems > > If you think you're improving your rep with these poor patches, you're delusional. > >> impossible if people are just going to forget about my good patches. > > We'll discuss that when you actually submit one that isn't a steaming > pile of dingo's kidneys. > > Do yourself a favor - try to resist the temptation to post a patch for at > least 30 to 60 days, *no matter how correct you think it is*. Very well then I will not do any more patches for the next month and only read the list. Nick _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
