Re: [PATCH] mm: Use fallthrough;

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>]

On (20/03/09 15:20), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > <shrug, maybe>  I've no real opinion about that necessity.
> > 
> > fallthrough commments are relatively rarely used as a
> > separating element between case labels.
> > 
> > It's by far most common to just have consecutive case labels
> > without any other content.
> > 
> > It's somewhere between 500:1 to 1000:1 in the kernel.
> 
> I thought that those labels were used by some static code analysis
> tools, so that the removal of some labels raised questions. But I
> don't think I have opinions otherwise.

... I guess GCC counts as a static code analysis tool :)

Looking at previous commits, people wanted to have proper 'fall through'


    Replace "fallthru" with a proper "fall through" annotation.
    This fix is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling
    -Wimplicit-fallthrough

---

-       case ZPOOL_MM_RW: /* fallthru */
+       case ZPOOL_MM_RW: /* fall through */

---


> Consecutive case labels do not need an interleaving fallthrough;

I suppose this means that GCC -Wimplicit-fallthrough handles it?

	-ss