Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200418184111.13401-1-rdunlap@infradead.org> <20200418184111.13401-3-rdunlap@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200418184111.13401-3-rdunlap@infradead.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:53:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjSzuTyyBkmMDG4fx_sXzLJsh+9Xk-ubgbpJzJq_kzPsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] fs: fix empty-body warning in posix_acl.c
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Zzy Wysm <zzy@zzywysm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:41 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Fix gcc empty-body warning when -Wextra is used:

Please don't do this.

First off, "do_empty()" adds nothing but confusion. Now it
syntactically looks like it does something, and it's a new pattern to
everybody. I've never seen it before.

Secondly, even if we were to do this, then the patch would be wrong:

>         if (cmpxchg(p, ACL_NOT_CACHED, sentinel) != ACL_NOT_CACHED)
> -               /* fall through */ ;
> +               do_empty(); /* fall through */

That comment made little sense before, but it makes _no_ sense now.

What fall-through? I'm guessing it meant to say "nothing", and
somebody was confused. With "do_empty()", it's even more confusing.

Thirdly, there's a *reason* why "-Wextra" isn't used.

The warnings enabled by -Wextra are usually complete garbage, and
trying to fix them often makes the code worse. Exactly like here.

             Linus