Received: by 10.223.164.202 with SMTP id h10csp3408456wrb; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:47:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYdeD+4cy3OpiZBcDNolejv0sr6/WfmDUD/tM9EpwBpeorxvD1pjdM8h8Q9yXG1l3bU1YwI X-Received: by 10.98.224.200 with SMTP id d69mr144072pfm.100.1511894865544; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:47:45 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1511894865; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LrfFwi6MUzBEwpEsKuPaYmf85EcVVNZ7k9HJpmQKgf9zl5NinCTxQKHD85AbSvOHt0 dzKaxsNSHk/j9nHXhcQc5lk+4+Yo/DPri6Z4F7rnMtYqn6HYQGWjeOgesGa1b7v8f8er hzqqem5eEX+HCTprxHG/U+gXKbcnJe+SqC1K7X2iTgAS36Xd6Hk9UKRlZmVibLqFr9OZ hWD+txptXDBC4j4PhLGzzfp9bL5DLSMix453bWEk8AtLOR8Uw9WitUMidUH4qFa95/s/ +59vpmAs8+h1uWZNWRMvaTZcVAV5SzpICH0Jfv4q0MvBb5j8TYhOrmwl/ZbkrQnC7hIF uNOQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date :arc-authentication-results; bh=rwZ0oWPbzpslXAHE/JwJwBJvfXxNkr7wrYz7170eS5o=; b=QxVT66sJmbyEpAGUBUdSbNo1Gs/v8NAmQwGCMuu8Ma8Sm386GhkjrdkQ6qd+RjI4uU bEWFNV6TPff5yN7wZGrdpEJtPvSn/FhBcADqJgvCrB4UZEMmBw/CJ7T0knqH/geALlJj ehegSEaZdclZVtbix2hHGnzQpDIRwEqn35s4scA0XV405LIUUgQli31UL50quLlebjVd NHrdUFURCT3f6UXuYLrnN39gKo/uAJPmpuGb8Ul/ECyKTIlV590ePkTp/elk9WXhbpab 9+P7h+PeEDYNyb4bcaSf+GTfMhPfa2xFP3Fo5lZnbpYNG97pZy81ELjXoC/OkPevaype /n0g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b5si24757298pgu.108.2017.11.28.10.47.34; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:47:45 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753177AbdK1Spk (ORCPT + 73 others); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:45:40 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:35190 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751701AbdK1Spj (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:45:39 -0500 Received: from p4fea5f09.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([79.234.95.9] helo=nanos) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1eJkrf-0005PM-Mg; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:44:15 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:45:23 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, LKML , Kees Cook , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20171127235253.GA20384@embeddedor.com> <20171128120512.Horde.1mz61Up1PsNtyHbrjWmK8L7@gator4166.hostgator.com> <20171128122235.Horde.vFP-9ZfAP0f9BFNePB8Z8xi@gator4166.hostgator.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: +CC Linus. > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > Quoting Thomas Gleixner : > > > > > To be honest, such comments annoy me during a code review especially when > > > > > the fallthrough is so obvious as in this case. There might be cases where > > > > > its worth to document because it's non obvious, but documenting the > > > > > obvious > > > > > just for the sake of documenting it is just wrong. > > > > > > > > > > I understand that and I agree that in this particular case it is just obvious. > > > The thing is that if we want to benefit from having the compiler help us to > > > spot these kind of issues before committing our code, we have to address every > > > place in the whole code-base. > > > > > > > And _IF_ at all then you want a fixed macro for this and not a comment > > > > which will be formatted as people see it fit. > > > > > > > > GCC supports: __attribute__ ((fallthrough)) which we can wrap into a macro, > > > > e.g. falltrough() > > > > > > > > That'd be useful, but adding all these comments and then having to chase a > > > > gazillion of warning instances to figure out whether there is a comment or > > > > not is just backwards. > > > > > > > > > > I have run into this before and people find what you suggest even uglier. > > > > It's not about ugly. It's about _USEFULL_. > > > > The comments are ugly AND completely useless for the compiler and they are > > going to be malformatted so checker tools can't differentiate the false > > positives. > > > > The macro, in which more or less ugly form written, is both documentation > > and helps the compiler NOT to emit the same crap over and over. > > Just checked and GCC really supports analyzing the comment to some extent. > > But just look at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77817 > > " It is not really possible. __attribute__((fallthrough)) has precise > rules on where it can appear, while /* FALLTHRU */ comments, being > comments, can appear anywhere. Especially with -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 > when all comments are considered fallthru comments... " > > I have no idea who came up with that brilliant idea of parsing comments in > the code. It's so simple to make this parser completely fail that it's not > even funny anymore. > > I don't care what other people prefer. The code base I'm responsible for > gets either proper annotations or nothing. And in fact we want ONE solution for the whole kernel. And comments are obviously the wrong one. Thanks, tglx From 1585336052036810145@xxx Tue Nov 28 18:37:55 +0000 2017 X-GM-THRID: 1585265423856272058 X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread