Re: [PATCH RESEND][next] rtl8xxxu: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang

On 4/17/21 13:29, Jes Sorensen wrote:

On 3/10/21 3:59 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/21 2:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:31:57PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:

quoted

On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

Hm, this conversation looks like a miscommunication, mainly? I see
Gustavo, as requested by many others[1], replacing the fallthrough
comments with the "fallthrough" statement. (This is more than just a
"Clang doesn't parse comments" issue.)

This could be a tree-wide patch and not bother you, but Greg KH has
generally advised us to send these changes broken out. Anyway, this
change still needs to land, so what would be the preferred path? I think
Gustavo could just carry it for Linus to merge without bothering you if
that'd be preferred?

I'll respond with the same I did last time, fallthrough is not C and
it's ugly.

I understand your point of view, but this is not the consensus[1] of
the community. "fallthrough" is a macro, using the GCC fallthrough
attribute, with the expectation that we can move to the C17/C18
"[[fallthrough]]" statement once it is finalized by the C standards
body.

I don't know who decided on that, but I still disagree. It's an ugly and
pointless change that serves little purpose. We shouldn't have allowed
the ugly /* fall-through */ comments in either, but at least they didn't
mess with the code. I guess when you give someone an inch, they take a mile.

Last time this came up, the discussion was that clang refused to fix
their brokenness and therefore this nonsense was being pushed into the
kernel. It's still a pointless argument, if clang can't fix it's crap,
then stop using it.

As Kalle correctly pointed out, none of the previous comments to this
were addressed, the patches were just reposted as fact. Not exactly a
nice way to go about it either.

Do you mean changing the commit log to re-justify these changes? I
guess that could be done, but based on the thread, it didn't seem to
be needed. The change is happening to match the coding style consensus
reached to give the kernel the flexibility to move from a gcc extension
to the final C standards committee results without having to do treewide
commits again (i.e. via the macro).

No, I am questioning why Gustavo continues to push this nonsense that
serves no purpose whatsoever. In addition he has consistently ignored
comments and just keep reposting it. But I guess that is how it works,
ignore feedback, repost junk, repeat.

I was asking for feedback here[1] and here[2] after people (you and Kalle)
commented on this patch. How is that ignoring people? And -again- why
people ignored my requests for feedback in this conversation? It's a mystery
to me, honestly.

Thanks
--
Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201124160906.GB17735@embeddedor/ (local)
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e10b2a6a-d91a-9783-ddbe-ea2c10a1539a@embeddedor.com/ (local)