Re: [PATCH] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Alan Cox <gnomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The notation in question has been standard in tools like lint since the
> end of the 1970s

Yes.

That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and
"default:" statements if that makes people happier.

IOW, we could do something like

    #define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))

and then write

    fallthrough case 1:
        ...

which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more
logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so
it makes semantic sense.

Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?

             Linus