Re: [GIT PULL] Wimplicit-fallthrough patches for 5.3-rc1

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>]

Hi Linus,

I noticed you didn't merge these changes in v5.3-rc1.

Should I send them again for rc2?

Do you have any comments on this pull-request?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

On 7/18/19 3:28 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/10/19 4:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Gustavo,
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:14:10 -0500 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> At some point during this development cycle, we reached the quota of zero
>>> fall-through warnings, but people continued introducing such warnings. So,
>>> it seems we are now pretty much ready for enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough
>>> globally. Before it turns into a never ending story. :)
>>
>> Sounds good to me.  My mail was, I guess, just a heads up to Linus that
>> he will see some new warnings in his test build if he merges your
>> tree.  Thanks for addressing them.
>>
> Yep. Thanks, Stephen.
> 
> Linus:
> 
> After you have merged all the trees containing fall-through patches, you might
> see the following warnings:
> 
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:4957:8: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:5006:8: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/onenand_base.c:3261:6: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> 
> for which I already have patches ready to be applied, but I didn't include them
> in my pull-request because such patches don't apply to 5.2-rc2, on which I based
> my -next tree for v5.3.
> 
> We can coordinate and I can send you the patches that address those and any other
> warning that you might see after merging my pull-request and just before you release
> 5.3-rc1. So we can have the -Wimplicit-fallthrough option globally enabled in
> 5.3-rc1 and zero fall-through warnings.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks
> --
> Gustavo
>