Joe Perches wrote:
> > My preference would be to fall through. The case number is the state
> > machine
> > state, as indexed by call->unmarshall.
>
> Then ideally the state machine states should be enums and not numbers
> and the compiler should use a default block for unhandled states right?
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 16:10 +, David Howells wrote:
> Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > call->unmarshall++;
> > > +
> > > + fallthrough;
> >
> > My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
> >
> > > case 5:
> > > break;
> > > }
>
> My prefe
Joe Perches wrote:
> > call->unmarshall++;
> > +
> > + fallthrough;
>
> My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
>
> > case 5:
> > break;
> > }
My preference would be to fall through. The case number is the state machine
st
On 11/20/20 17:18, Joe Perches wrote:
> My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
And my preference is fallthrough.
Joe, please, let the maintainer share their opinion on this first.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 17:28 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> On 11/20/20 17:18, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > My preference would be to change these to break and not fallthrough;
>
> And my preference is fallthrough.
If so, that's an unusual choice here as it seems most or all of
the other patches
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:23 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
> warnings by explicitly adding multiple fallthrough pseudo-keywords
> in places where the code is intended to fall through to the next
> case.
This is the first
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, fix multiple
warnings by explicitly adding multiple fallthrough pseudo-keywords
in places where the code is intended to fall through to the next
case.
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/115
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
7 matches
Mail list logo
