On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:58:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > > /* fall through */
> > >
> > > for all of them would be pretty annoying.
> >
> > agreed, but with that example, it seems pretty obvious (to me at least)
> > that the lack of break's is intentional. Where it gets trickier to
> > make quick judgment calls is cases like the one I mentioned above,
> > where there are only a few cases, and there's real code involved in
> > some but not all cases.
> >
>
> I fully agree and have code in the oom killer that has the "fall through"
> comment if there's code in between the case statements, but I think things
> like
>
> case MPOL_BIND:
> case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> ...
>
> is quite easy to read. I don't feel strongly at all, though, so I'll just
> leave it to Andrew's preference.
I've never even thought about it, but that won't prevent me from
pretending otherwise! How about:
This:
case WIBBLE:
something();
something_else();
case WOBBLE:
needs a /* fall through */ comment (because it *looks* like a mistake),
whereas
case WIBBLE:
case WOBBLE:
does not?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
