Thread (175 messages) 175 messages, 28 authors, 2022-05-24

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: 2022-04-29 14:05:00
Also in: kexec, linux-alpha, linux-edac, linux-hyperv, linux-leds, linux-mips, linux-pm, linux-remoteproc, linux-s390, linux-tegra, linux-um, linuxppc-dev, lkml, netdev, rcu, sparclinux

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:46:35 -0300
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" [off-list ref] wrote:
Thanks Sergei and Steven, good idea! I thought about the switch change
you propose, but I confess I got a bit confused by the "fallthrough"
keyword - do I need to use it?
No. The fallthrough keyword is only needed when there's code between case
labels. As it is very common to list multiple cases for the same code path.
That is:

	case DIE_OOPS:
 	case PANIC_NOTIFIER:
 		do_dump = 1;
 		break;

Does not need a fall through label, as there's no code between the DIE_OOPS
and the PANIC_NOTIFIER. But if you had:

	case DIE_OOPS:
		x = true;
 	case PANIC_NOTIFIER:
 		do_dump = 1;
 		break;

Then you do.

-- Steve
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help