Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:43:42 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix -Wfallthrough |
| |
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:42 PM Moore, Robert <robert.moore@intel.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:33 PM > To: Moore, Robert <robert.moore@intel.com> > Cc: Kaneda, Erik <erik.kaneda@intel.com>; Wysocki, Rafael J <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>; Gustavo A . R . Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>; clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com; Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; devel@acpica.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix -Wfallthrough > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM Moore, Robert <robert.moore@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ndesaulniers via sendgmr > > <ndesaulniers@ndesaulniers1.mtv.corp.google.com> On Behalf Of Nick > > Desaulniers > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 6:12 PM > > To: Moore, Robert <robert.moore@intel.com>; Kaneda, Erik > > <erik.kaneda@intel.com>; Wysocki, Rafael J > > <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>; Gustavo A . R . Silva > > <gustavoars@kernel.org> > > Cc: clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com; Nick Desaulniers > > <ndesaulniers@google.com>; Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>; > > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; devel@acpica.org; > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH] ACPICA: fix -Wfallthrough > > > > The "fallthrough" pseudo-keyword was added as a portable way to denote intentional fallthrough. This code seemed to be using a mix of fallthrough comments that GCC recognizes, and some kind of lint marker. > > I'm guessing that linter hasn't been run in a while from the mixed use of the marker vs comments. > > > > /*lint -fallthrough */ > > > > This is the lint marker > > Yes; but from my patch, the hunk modifying > acpi_ex_store_object_to_node() and vsnprintf() seem to indicate that maybe the linter hasn't been run in a while. > > Which linter is that? I'm curious whether I should leave those be, and whether we're going to have an issue between compilers and linters as to which line/order these would need to appear on. > > It's an old version of PC-Lint, which we don't use anymore.
Ah, ok, I'll remove them then.
+ ACPI_FALLTHROUGH; /*lint -fallthrough */
should work to support both, but I'll just remove it. V2 inbound. Thanks for the feedback! -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
| |