From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:34:51 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20171010193027.GA23108@embeddedor.com> <5f5f0f54-d901-90be-9025-0a1c4b909368@gmail.com> <87o9peqdo2.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Kalle Valo Return-path: Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]:55145 "EHLO mail-qt0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752123AbdJKNey (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:34:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o9peqdo2.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Jes