On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto/return/fal
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it so
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gusta
Gustavo,
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
Applied 20-22,54,120-124 to 5.11/scsi-staging, thanks.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
___
amd-g
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:52:27AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Gustavo,
>
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> Applied 20-22,54,120-124 to 5.11/scsi-staging, thanks.
Awesome! :)
Thanks, Mart
Hi Miguel,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:54 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
> > To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> > understand the intent; otherwise by adding either a break or a
> > fallthrough to suppress the warning yo
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
>
> To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> understand the intent; otherwise by adding either a break or a
> fallthrough to suppress the warning you are just destroying the
> information that "the intent of this code
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> The maintainer is not necessarily the owner/author of the code, and
> thus may not know the intent of the code.
Agreed, I was not blaming maintainers -- just trying to point out that
the problem is there :-)
In those cases, it is stil
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:54 PM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
> > > To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> > > understand the intent; otherwise
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers
> > and their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
>
> Have we found any cases yet that are divergent? I d
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain
> wrote:
> >
> > Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers
> > and their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
>
> Have we found any cases yet that are divergent? I d
On 24/11/2020 21:25, Kees Cook wrote:
> I still think this isn't right -- it's a case statement that runs off
> the end without an explicit flow control determination.
Proves too much — for instance
case foo:
case bar:
thing;
break;
doesn't require a fallthrough; after cas
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05:35PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Now, what we have seems to be about 6 cases (at least what's been shown
> in this thread) where a missing break would cause potentially user
> visible issues. That means the value of this isn't zero, but it's not
> a no-brainer mas
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> So developers and distributions using Clang can't have
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough enabled because GCC is less strict (which has
> been shown in this thread to lead to bugs)? We'd like to have nice
> things too, you know.
>
Apparently the GCC devel
On 25/11/2020 00:32, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> I have said *authoring* lines of *this* kind takes a minute per line.
> Specifically: lines fixing the fallthrough warning mechanically and
> repeatedly where the compiler tells you to, and doing so full-time for
> a month.
> It is useful since it makes i
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:24 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> And just to spell it out,
>
> case ENUM_VALUE1:
> bla();
> break;
> case ENUM_VALUE2:
> bla();
> default:
> break;
>
> is a fairly idiomatic way of indicating that not all values of the enum
> are expected to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 13:32 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > We already enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough globally, so that's not the
> > discussion. The issue is that Clang is (correctly) even more strict
> > than GCC for this, so these are the r
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 04:24:27 -0800 Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> I even agree that most of the churn comes from
>
> case 0:
> ++x;
> default:
> break;
And just to spell it out,
case ENUM_VALUE1:
bla();
break;
case ENUM_VALUE2:
bla();
default:
break;
is a fairly i
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:39 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 19:56 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
...
> > But if we do the math, for an author, at even 1 minute per line
> > change and assuming nothing can be automate
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 07:58:06AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
> > > It's not about the risk of the changes it's about the cost of
> > > implementing them. Even if you discou
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:53 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> I'm saying that supporting the official language spec makes more sense
> than attempting to support a multitude of divergent interpretations of the
> spec (i.e. gcc, clang, coverity etc.)
Making the kernel strictly conforming is a ship that s
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> What I meant was that you've used pessimism as if it was fact.
"future mistakes that it might prevent" is neither pessimism nor states a fact.
> For example, "There is no way to guess what the effect would be if the
> compiler trained program
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:38 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> So you think a one line patch should take one minute to produce ... I
> really don't think that's grounded in reality.
No, I have not said that. Please don't put words in my mouth (again).
I have said *authoring* lines of *this* kind tak
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:24 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> These statements are not "missing" unless you presume that code written
> before the latest de facto language spec was written should somehow be
> held to that spec.
There is no "language spec" the kernel adheres to. Even if it did,
kernel co
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:31:30AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Really, no ... something which produces no improvement has no value at
> > all ... we really shouldn't be wasting maintainer time with it because
> > it has a cost to merge. I'm not sure
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it so
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:31:30AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Really, no ... something which produces no improvement has no value at
> all ... we really shouldn't be wasting maintainer time with it because
> it has a cost to merge. I'm not sure we understand where the balance
> lies in value
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 13:32 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:31:30AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Really, no ... something which produces no improvement has no value
> > at all ... we really shouldn't be wasting maintainer time with it
> > because it has a cost to merge. I
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> The C standard has nothing to do with this. We use compiler extensions
> of several kinds, for many years. Even discounting those extensions, the
> kernel is not even conforming to C due to e.g. strict aliasing. I am not
> sure what you are trying
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:38:46PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> >
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-f
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 04:03:45PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:21:39PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> > IB/hfi1: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > IB/mlx4: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > IB/qedr: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > R
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor reviewe
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into
> > > account the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
> >
> > We should als
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> > generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for
> > reviewers.
>
> Ideally, that proof would be provided by the c
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:32:51 -0800 Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it sounds to m
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 19:56 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, I used git. It says that as of today in Linus' tree we have
> > 889 patches related to fall throughs and the first series went in
> > in october 2017 ... ignoring a couple o
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:21:39PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> IB/hfi1: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> IB/mlx4: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> IB/qedr: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> RDMA/mlx5: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
I picked these four to the rdm
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto/return/fall
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, it seems to be three years of someone's time plus the
> > maintainer review time and series disruption of nearly a thousand
> > patches. Let's be conservative and assume th
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
https://www.wired.com/story/o
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, I used git. It says that as of today in Linus' tree we have 889
> patches related to fall throughs and the first series went in in
> october 2017 ... ignoring a couple of outliers back to February.
I can see ~10k insertions over ~1
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:03 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:53:55AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:22 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe P
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > Maintainers routinely review 1-line trivial patches, not to mention
> > internal API changes, etc.
>
>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it seems to be three years of someone's time plus the maintainer
> review time and series disruption of nearly a thousand patches. Let's
> be conservative and assume the producer worked about 30% on the series
> and it takes about
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:54 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
> tooling.
Not sure what you mean here. There is no reliable way to guess what
the intention was with a missing fallthrough, even if you parsed
whitespace and indentation
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:53:55AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:22 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottoml
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it? All that fixing this
> error will do is get the driver to print "oh dear there's a problem"
> under four more conditions
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > missing error print.
>
> There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
> by the fallthrough additions.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
_
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error print.
> >
> > There were quite lit
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:22 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a s
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account
> the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
tooling.
> So even if there were zero problems found
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:17 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:54 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> But is anyone keeping score of the regressions? If unreported bugs
> count, what about unreported regressions?
Well, I was curious about the former (obviously no tool will tell me
about the latter), so I asked git what patches had a fall-throu
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 21:35 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> > compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it? All that fixing
> > this error will do is get the driver to
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > > This series aims to fix almost all
Hi James.
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no
> > > change to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a
> > > warning.
> >
> > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFCwf11izHF=g1mGry1fE5kvFFFrxzhPSM6q
Hi Gustavo,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:21 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
Thanks for this.
Since this warning is reliable in both/all compilers and we are
event
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > > This series aims to fix almost all
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > > order to enable -Wimplicit-fall
On 11/20/20 12:28, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
>> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>>
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough
Hi,
On 11/20/20 12:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
>> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>>
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Cla
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> >
> > In preparation to enable -Wimplici
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto/return/fallt
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple break/goto
Hi all,
This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just
letting the code fall through
66 matches
Mail list logo
