Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: io_edgeport: mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

Quoting BjÃrn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx>:

> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases
> > where we are expecting to fall through.
> >
> > Notice that in this particular case I replaced "...drop on through"
> > comments with a proper "fall through" comment on its own line, which
> > is what GCC is expecting to find.
>
> Sounds to me like GCC is the wrong tool for this.  But I would of course
> not mind if it was *just* the text.  However, as your patch cleary
> shows, the simplified logic leads to real problems:
>
> > @@ -1819,8 +1819,8 @@ static void process_rcvd_data(struct  
> > edgeport_serial *edge_serial,
> >  					edge_serial->rxState = EXPECT_DATA;
> >  					break;
> >  				}
> > -				/* Else, drop through */
> >  			}
> > +			/* fall through */
> >  		case EXPECT_DATA: /* Expect data */
> >  			if (bufferLength < edge_serial->rxBytesRemaining) {
> >  				rxLen = bufferLength;
>
>
> The original comment clearly marked a *conditional* fall through at the
> correct place.  Your patch makes it appear as if there is an
> unconditional fall through here.  There is not.  The fallthrough only
> applies to one of a number of nested if blocks. There are no less than
> 3 break statements in the same case block.

I see.
You are right.

> Not a big deal maybe, just as the lack of any "fall through" comment
> isn't a big deal in the first place.  But this change is clearly making
> this code harder to read, and the change is therefore harmful IMHO.
>
> If you can't make -Wimplicit-fallthrough work without removing such
> precise fallthrough markings, then my proposal is to drop it and use
> some other tool.

I will talk with the hardening guys to see what we can do about this.

I appreciate for your comments.
Thanks
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva