Message ID | 20220111191456.GA11976@embeddedor (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Handled Elsewhere |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] fallthrough fixes for Clang for 5.17-rc1 | expand |
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:08 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> wrote: > > Please, pull the following patches that fix some fall-through warnings > when building with Clang and -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Ugh. I started pulling that, and then I actually looked at this one: > Gustavo A. R. Silva (1): > MIPS: mm: tlbex: Fix fall-through warning for Clang and that's just too ugly to live. It was ugly before, but now it's just insane. It literally has an if-statement with a block statement that contains other cases. Fine, that's not illegal, and Duff's device made the model famous. But in this case, there's no actual _reason_ for it. It literally looks like a mistake to me. There's no reason to have that block statement in the first place, and there's *doubly* no reason to add a "fallthrough" to other case statements that then just do a "break" anyway. I notice that we actually had that exact same pattern earlier, see line 2166 in that same line. And it's equally bogus there. Actually, it's even more bogus there, because the indentation is wrong too! So I _think_ that patch should do something like the attached, but I didn't actually test this in any way (I didn't check my mips cross-build setup), and this is all so ugly that I have to avert my eyes to even attach that patch to this email. I also don't understand why it's doing that 'switch ()' on the current_cpu_type(), only to avoid the 'cpu_has_mips_r2_exec_hazard' test, Which is just _another_ switch on current_cpu_type(). All this code is completely incomprehensibly oddly written. It looks like some kind of cut-and-paste thing with no actual understanding of the code. And I refuse to make it worse than it already is by adding even *more* mindless blather to it. Linus