Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:46916 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751149AbdJLEct (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:32:49 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Jes Sorensen Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs References: <20171010193027.GA23108@embeddedor.com> <5f5f0f54-d901-90be-9025-0a1c4b909368@gmail.com> <87o9peqdo2.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:32:44 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Jes Sorensen's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:34:51 -0400") Message-ID: <87po9touj7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20171012_063337_412032_88FB201E) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jes Sorensen writes: > On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Jes Sorensen writes: >> >>> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >>>> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >>>> where we are expecting to fall through. >>> >>> While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn >>> for zero gain and it's just ugly. >> >> In general I find it useful to mark fall through cases. And it's just a >> comment with two words, so they cannot hurt your eyes that much. > > I don't see them being harmful in the code, but I don't see them of > much use either. If it happened as part of natural code development, > fine. My objection is to people running around doing this > systematically causing patch churn for little to zero gain. We do receive quite a lot these kind of cleanup patches found with various analysers and tools. I guess one could classify those as churn but I think the net result is still very much on the positive side. And this patch in particular seems useful for me and I think we should take it. -- Kalle Valo