From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752972AbdK1NuC (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:02 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:33166 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751395AbdK1NuA (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:50:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:49:44 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs In-Reply-To: <20171127235253.GA20384@embeddedor.com> Message-ID: References: <20171127235253.GA20384@embeddedor.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases > where we are expecting to fall through. > case 0: > if (!n--) break; > *args++ = regs->bx; > + /* fall through */ And these gazillions of pointless comments help enabling of -Wimplicit-fallthrough in which way? Thanks, tglx