Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Kalle Valo
Jes Sorensen writes: > On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Jes Sorensen writes: >> >>> On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. >>> >>> While this isn't harmf

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 12:54 +, David Laight wrote: > From: Joe Perches > > Sent: 11 October 2017 11:21 > > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > > where we are expecting to fall through. > >

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Kees Cook
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > Quoting Jes Sorensen : >> On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Jes Sorensen writes: On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
Hi Jes, Quoting Jes Sorensen : On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: Jes Sorensen writes: On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. While this isn't harmful, to me th

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Jes Sorensen
On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: Jes Sorensen writes: On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch chur

RE: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread David Laight
From: Joe Perches > Sent: 11 October 2017 11:21 > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > > where we are expecting to fall through. > > perhaps use Arnaldo's idea: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/9/8

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Joe Perches
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:30 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. perhaps use Arnaldo's idea: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/9/845 https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/10/485

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-11 Thread Kalle Valo
Jes Sorensen writes: > On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. > > While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn > for zero gain and it's just ugly

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-10 Thread Florian Fainelli
On 10/10/2017 12:35 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote: > On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: >> In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases >> where we are expecting to fall through. > > While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn > for zero g

Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs

2017-10-10 Thread Jes Sorensen
On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. While this isn't harmful, to me this looks like pointless patch churn for zero gain and it's just ugly. Jes Cc: Jes Sorensen Cc: