05/08/2020 15:34, Adrian Moreno: > Hi Thomas, > > On 8/5/20 11:12 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 04/08/2020 09:38, Adrian Moreno: > >> The PREFER_FALLTHROUGH check warns if a passthrough comment is found > >> because, in the kernel, the special macro "fallthrough" is prefered. > >> > >> Since that keyword is not defined in DPDK, ignore the warning. > > > > We could ask why not defining a similar keyword? > > > > Surely, we can also add the keyword. Given that unintended fallthrough is > already protected by the "MISSING_BREAK" and that fallthrough comments are > already used in DPDK, I thought it made sense to ignore the check.
Yes this patch makes sense. And anyway, we'll never use the same keyword as in kernel. > If you prefer to add the keyword, let me ask: > - Where is the right place for it? Maybe rte_common.h? Yes > - Should all the comments be replaced with the pseudo-keyword? Yes Before doing that, please send a RFC. I remember we already tried that but failed. > >> --- a/devtools/checkpatches.sh > >> +++ b/devtools/checkpatches.sh > >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ VOLATILE,PREFER_PACKED,PREFER_ALIGNED,PREFER_PRINTF,\ > >> PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES,BIT_MACRO,CONST_STRUCT,\ > >> SPLIT_STRING,LONG_LINE_STRING,C99_COMMENT_TOLERANCE,\ > >> LINE_SPACING,PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT,NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE,\ > >> -NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL" > >> +NEW_TYPEDEFS,COMPARISON_TO_NULL,PREFER_FALLTHROUGH" > > > > I would add this option between PREFER_KERNEL_TYPES and BIT_MACRO > > to maintain a bit of logic ordering. > > > OK. I'll reorder it if the final decision is to ignore the check. Yes thanks
