Gustavo,
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
Applied 20-22,54,120-124 to 5.11/scsi-staging, thanks.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
___
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:52:27AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Gustavo,
>
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> Applied 20-22,54,120-124 to 5.11/scsi-staging, thanks.
Awesome! :)
Thanks,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 08:17:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> The maintainer is not necessarily the owner/author of the code, and
> thus may not know the intent of the code.
Agreed, I was not blaming maintainers -- just trying to point out that
the problem is there :-)
In those cases, it is
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:39 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 19:56 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
...
> > But if we do the math, for an author, at even 1 minute per line
> > change and assuming nothing can be
On 24/11/2020 21:25, Kees Cook wrote:
> I still think this isn't right -- it's a case statement that runs off
> the end without an explicit flow control determination.
Proves too much — for instance
case foo:
case bar:
thing;
break;
doesn't require a fallthrough; after
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 07:58:06AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
> > > It's not about the risk of the changes it's about the cost of
> > > implementing them. Even if you
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
>
> To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> understand the intent; otherwise by adding either a break or a
> fallthrough to suppress the warning you are just destroying the
> information that "the intent of this code
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:38 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> So you think a one line patch should take one minute to produce ... I
> really don't think that's grounded in reality.
No, I have not said that. Please don't put words in my mouth (again).
I have said *authoring* lines of *this* kind
Hi Miguel,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:54 PM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
> > To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> > understand the intent; otherwise by adding either a break or a
> > fallthrough to suppress the warning
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 4:28 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:54 PM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:44 PM Edward Cree wrote:
> > > To make the intent clear, you have to first be certain that you
> > > understand the intent;
On 25/11/2020 00:32, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> I have said *authoring* lines of *this* kind takes a minute per line.
> Specifically: lines fixing the fallthrough warning mechanically and
> repeatedly where the compiler tells you to, and doing so full-time for
> a month.
> It is useful since it makes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 AM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> What I meant was that you've used pessimism as if it was fact.
"future mistakes that it might prevent" is neither pessimism nor states a fact.
> For example, "There is no way to guess what the effect would be if the
> compiler trained
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 04:03:45PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:21:39PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> > IB/hfi1: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > IB/mlx4: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> > IB/qedr: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> >
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:38:46PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> >
> > In preparation to enable
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> > generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for
> > reviewers.
>
> Ideally, that proof would be provided by the
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 07:58 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> We're also complaining about the inability to recruit maintainers:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/30/hard_to_find_linux_maintainers_says_torvalds/
>
> And burn out:
>
> http://antirez.com/news/129
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>
> It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into account
> the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
tooling.
> So even if there were zero problems found
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, it seems to be three years of someone's time plus the
> > maintainer review time and series disruption of nearly a thousand
> > patches. Let's be conservative and assume
Hi James.
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no
> > > change to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a
> > > warning.
> >
> > FWIW, this series has found at least one bug so far:
> >
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 19:56 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, I used git. It says that as of today in Linus' tree we have
> > 889 patches related to fall throughs and the first series went in
> > in october 2017 ... ignoring a couple
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 11:58 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> it's not for me to prove that such patches don't affect code
> generation. That's for the patch author and (unfortunately) for reviewers.
Ideally, that proof would be provided by the compilation system itself
and not patch authors nor
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, I used git. It says that as of today in Linus' tree we have 889
> patches related to fall throughs and the first series went in in
> october 2017 ... ignoring a couple of outliers back to February.
I can see ~10k insertions over
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it seems to be three years of someone's time plus the maintainer
> review time and series disruption of nearly a thousand patches. Let's
> be conservative and assume the producer worked about 30% on the series
> and it takes about
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:32:51 -0800 Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > > to machine code then it sounds to
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:21:39PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> IB/hfi1: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> IB/mlx4: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> IB/qedr: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
> RDMA/mlx5: Fix fall-through warnings for Clang
I picked these four to the
On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It isn't that much effort, isn't it? Plus we need to take into
> > > account the future mistakes that it might prevent, too.
> >
> > We should
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 21:35 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> > Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> > compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it? All that fixing
> > this error will do is get the driver to
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:54 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> We should also take into account optimisim about future improvements in
> tooling.
Not sure what you mean here. There is no reliable way to guess what
the intention was with a missing fallthrough, even if you parsed
whitespace and
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:58 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 15:19 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:36 PM James Bottomley
> > wrote:
[cut]
> >
> > Maintainers routinely review 1-line trivial patches, not to mention
> > internal API changes, etc.
>
>
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 09:54 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> But is anyone keeping score of the regressions? If unreported bugs
> count, what about unreported regressions?
Well, I was curious about the former (obviously no tool will tell me
about the latter), so I asked git what patches had a
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > missing error print.
>
> There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
> by the fallthrough
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:22 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 11:12 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:25 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Please tell me our reward for all this effort isn't a single
> > > missing error print.
> >
> > There were quite
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 7:22 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> Well, it's a problem in an error leg, sure, but it's not a really
> compelling reason for a 141 patch series, is it? All that fixing this
> error will do is get the driver to print "oh dear there's a problem"
> under four more conditions
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 10:21 -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> Please tell me
> our reward for all this effort isn't a single missing error print.
There were quite literally dozens of logical defects found
by the fallthrough additions. Very few were logging only.
On Sun, 2020-11-22 at 08:17 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > > This series aims to fix almost all
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > > This series aims to fix almost all
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > > order to enable
On 11/20/20 12:28, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
>> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>>
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
> >
> > In preparation to enable
Hi all,
This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just
letting the code fall
Hi Gustavo,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 7:21 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
Thanks for this.
Since this warning is reliable in both/all compilers and we are
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 12:21 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>
> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly
> add multiple
Hi,
On 11/20/20 12:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in
>> order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang.
>>
>> In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for
50 matches
Mail list logo
