From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1E5C3A5A6 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8AB20644 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CF8AB20644 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46K5kk2L73zDrqP for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:14:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=45.249.212.187; helo=huawei.com; envelope-from=gaoxiang25@huawei.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46K5kZ06KvzDrgn for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:14:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.56]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C23A7307FB9537182FB3; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:14:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:14:40 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:14:39 +0800 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:13:53 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: erofs: using switch-case while checking the inode type. Message-ID: <20190829151352.GA100055@architecture4> References: <20190829130813.11721-1-pratikshinde320@gmail.com> <20190829135607.GA195010@architecture4> <20190829141522.GA15562@architecture4> <20190829150436.GI23584@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190829150436.GI23584@kadam> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme717-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.113) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" Hi Dan, On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:04:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:15:22PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > I am very happy that you send a patch about this, but we have > > to take care of handling "fall through" properly at least, > > and I don't want to introduce some extra compile warnings > > instead at this time. > > I can't apply the patch so I maybe missed something. I don't see > a fall through issue. We have the code so you could use ^^^^^^^^ to > indicate which lines have a fall through problem. > > > > > EROFS is sensitive for now and I have no idea what the "real" > > point is. > > What does "sensitive" mean here? Now that it's out of staging we > aren't applying clean up patches? Of course not, I mean we should avoid "fall through" problem but I have no time to verify this patch since I am fixing what hch said as well. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > regards, > dan carpenter >