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

Jes Sorensen [off-list ref] writes:

On 10/11/2017 04:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:

quoted

Jes Sorensen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 10/10/2017 03:30 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:

quoted

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
it.

-- 
Kalle Valo