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: <1511899194.19952.43.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>,
        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 11:59:54 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw5DAB6qZu4fmDTvhU-wB4zNhUGuBBdBzMnh5d=ybBj-g@mail.gmail.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>
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 11:10 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?

I don't

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485


From 1585340571358614764@xxx Tue Nov 28 19:49:45 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585265423856272058
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread