On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:45:54PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 21:31 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:19:13AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > > > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > > > > > This patch fixes the following warnings: > > > > > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c: In function ‘intel_pmu_init’: > > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:4959:8: warning: this statement may fall > > > through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > pmem = true; > > > ~~~~~^~~~~~ > > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:4960:2: note: here > > > case INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_MOBILE: > > > ^~~~ > > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:5008:8: warning: this statement may fall > > > through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] > > > pmem = true; > > > ~~~~~^~~~~~ > > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:5009:2: note: here > > > case INTEL_FAM6_ICELAKE_MOBILE: > > > ^~~~ > > > > > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > > > > > This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable > > > -Wimplicit-fallthrough. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gust...@embeddedor.com> > > > > I still consider it an abomination that the C parser looks at comments > > -- other than to delete them, but OK I suppose, I'll take it. > > I still believe Arnaldo's/Miguel's/Shawn's/my et al. suggestion of > > #define __fallthrough __attribute__((fallthrough)) > > is far better. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/9/845 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485 > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181021171414.22674-2-miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190617155643.GA32544@amd/
Oh yes, worlds better. Please, can we haz that instead?
