On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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:
> > ...
> >
> >
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:58:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes
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 br
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
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:18:16PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > > case MPOL_BIND:
> > > - /* Fall through */
> > > case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> > > nodes = pol->v.nodes;
> > > break;
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
> >case MPOL_BIND:
> > - /* Fall through */
> >case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> >nodes = pol->v.nodes;
> >break;
>
> Any reason not to leave this ?
>
> "missing break" is the 2nd most common thing that coverity picks up.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 07:58:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> case MPOL_BIND:
> -/* Fall through */
> case MPOL_INTERLEAVE:
> nodes = pol->v.nodes;
> break;
Any reason not to leave this ?
"missing break" is the 2nd most common thing that c
mpol_to_str() should not fail. Currently, it either fails because the
string buffer is too small or because a string hasn't been defined for a
mempolicy mode.
If a new mempolicy mode is introduced and no string is defined for it,
just warn and return "unknown".
If the buffer is too small, just t
7 matches
Mail list logo