On 3/10/21 3:59 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> On 3/10/21 2:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:31:57PM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/21 2:14 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>> 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.


Reply via email to