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;
Message-ID: <1511917656.19952.52.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:07:36 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20171128143714.Horde.2uPOfQfKWjP7aGfH2w0lflN@gator4166.hostgator.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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);
	}


From 1585346717362488393@xxx Tue Nov 28 21:27:26 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585265423856272058
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread