Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:32:44 +0300
- From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: mark expected switch fall-throughs
Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>> In general I find it useful to mark fall through cases. And it's just a
>> comment with two words, so they cannot hurt your eyes that much.
> I don't see them being harmful in the code, but I don't see them of
> much use either. If it happened as part of natural code development,
> fine. My objection is to people running around doing this
> systematically causing patch churn for little to zero gain.
We do receive quite a lot these kind of cleanup patches found with
various analysers and tools. I guess one could classify those as churn
but I think the net result is still very much on the positive side. And
this patch in particular seems useful for me and I think we should take