Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1511917656.19952.52.camel@perches.com>
References: <20171127235253.GA20384@embeddedor.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281448520.1723@nanos>
 <20171128120512.Horde.1mz61Up1PsNtyHbrjWmK8L7@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281908040.2222@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281911280.2222@nanos>
 <20171128122235.Horde.vFP-9ZfAP0f9BFNePB8Z8xi@gator4166.hostgator.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281924080.2222@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711281933170.2222@nanos>
 <20171128190032.2b1fa464@alans-desktop> <CA+55aFw5DAB6qZu4fmDTvhU-wB4zNhUGuBBdBzMnh5d=ybBj-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171128143714.Horde.2uPOfQfKWjP7aGfH2w0lflN@gator4166.hostgator.com> <1511917656.19952.52.camel@perches.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:20:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdV2RYGAi9eG0rOYna5n34WyZZL12o+gDowuyKRHrczKCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Joe,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 14:37 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
>> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox
>> > <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
>> > > end of the 1970s
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
>> > "default:" statements if that makes people happier.
>> >
>> > IOW, we could do something like
>> >
>> >     #define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
>> >
>> > and then write
>> >
>> >     fallthrough case 1:
>> >         ...
>> >
>> > which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
>> > logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
>> > it makes semantic sense.
>> >
>>
>> This is elegant. The thing is that this makes it appear as if there is
>> an unconditional fall through.
>>
>> It is not uncommon to have multiple break statements in the same case
>> block and to fall through also.
>
> My preferred syntax would be to use __fallthrough or fallthrough
> in the same manner as break;
>
>         switch (foo) {
>         case bar:
>                 bar();
>                 fallthrough;
>         case baz:
>                 baz();
>                 break;
>         default;
>                 qux();
>                 exit(1);
>         }

Makes sense to me.

Comments are fragile.
In addition, they are stripped if you run cpp (or gcc -E) separately, unlike
__atttibute__((fallthrough)).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

From 1585360624122457906@xxx Wed Nov 29 01:08:29 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585265423856272058
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread