On Fri 2019-08-02 07:00:42, Neil Horman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:26:29PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:10 PM <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not disagreeing... I think using a macro makes sense. > > > > It is either a macro or waiting for 5+ years (while we keep using the > > comment style) :-) > > > > In case it helps to make one's mind about whether to go for it or not, > > I summarized the advantages and a few other details in the patch I > > sent in October: > > > > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commit/668f011a2706ea555987e263f609a5deba9c7fc4 > > > > It would be nice, however, to discuss whether we want __fallthrough or > > fallthrough. The former is consistent with the rest of compiler > > attributes and makes it clear it is not a keyword, the latter is > > consistent with "break", "goto" and "return", as Joe's patch explains. > > > I was having this conversation with Joe, and I agree, I like the idea of > macroing up the fall through attribute, but naming it __fallthrough seems more > consistent to me with the other attribute macros. I also feel like its more > recognizable as a macro. Naming it fallthrough just makes it look like > someone > forgot to put /**/'s around it to me.
I like the "fallthrough". It looks like "return" and it should, no
need to have __'s there..
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
