| Message ID | e0dd3af448e38e342c1ac6e7c0c802696eb77fd6.1564549413.git.joe@perches.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: sctp: Rename fallthrough label to unhandled | expand |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? Neil > --- > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > index 36bd8a6e82df..3fdcaa2fbf12 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > case SCTP_PARAM_SET_PRIMARY: > if (net->sctp.addip_enable) > break; > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > case SCTP_PARAM_HOST_NAME_ADDRESS: > /* Tell the peer, we won't support this param. */ > @@ -2163,11 +2163,11 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > case SCTP_PARAM_FWD_TSN_SUPPORT: > if (ep->prsctp_enable) > break; > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > case SCTP_PARAM_RANDOM: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > /* SCTP-AUTH: Secion 6.1 > * If the random number is not 32 byte long the association > @@ -2184,7 +2184,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > case SCTP_PARAM_CHUNKS: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > /* SCTP-AUTH: Section 3.2 > * The CHUNKS parameter MUST be included once in the INIT or > @@ -2200,7 +2200,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > case SCTP_PARAM_HMAC_ALGO: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > hmacs = (struct sctp_hmac_algo_param *)param.p; > n_elt = (ntohs(param.p->length) - > @@ -2223,7 +2223,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > retval = SCTP_IERROR_ABORT; > } > break; > -fallthrough: > +unhandled: > default: > pr_debug("%s: unrecognized param:%d for chunk:%d\n", > __func__, ntohs(param.p->type), cid); > -- > 2.15.0 > >
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? Hi. I sent after this a patch that adds # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c [] > > @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > case SCTP_PARAM_SET_PRIMARY: > > if (net->sctp.addip_enable) > > break; > > - goto fallthrough; > > + goto unhandled; etc...
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > Hi. > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception, etc) Neil > > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > [] > > > @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > > case SCTP_PARAM_SET_PRIMARY: > > > if (net->sctp.addip_enable) > > > break; > > > - goto fallthrough; > > > + goto unhandled; > > etc... > > >
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > > > Hi. > > > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception, > etc) Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > > > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > > > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other > > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception, > > etc) > > Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement. I think thats somewhat debatable. __fallthrough to me looks like an internal macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */ Neil > > > >
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 16:58 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > > > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > > > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > > > > > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > > > > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > > > > > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other > > > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception, > > > etc) > > > > Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement. > I think thats somewhat debatable. __fallthrough to me looks like an internal > macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */ I'd rather see: switch (foo) { case FOO: bar |= baz; fallthrough; case BAR: bar |= qux; break; default: error(); } than switch (foo) { case FOO: bar |= baz; __fallthrough; case BAR: bar |= qux; break; default: error(); } or esoecially switch (foo) { case FOO: bar |= baz; /* fallthrough */; case BAR: bar |= qux; break; default: error(); } but <shrug>, bikeshed ahoy!...
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 16:58 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:35:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > > > > > > Are you referring to the __attribute__((fallthrough)) statement that gcc > > > > > > supports? If so the compiler should by all rights be able to differentiate > > > > > > between a null statement attribute and a explicit goto and label without the > > > > > > need for renaming here. Or are you referring to something else? > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > I sent after this a patch that adds > > > > > > > > > > # define fallthrough __attribute__((__fallthrough__)) > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > > > > > > > > So this rename is a prerequisite to adding this #define. > > > > > > > > > why not just define __fallthrough instead, like we do for all the other > > > > attributes we alias (i.e. __read_mostly, __protected_by, __unused, __exception, > > > > etc) > > > > > > Because it's not as intelligible when used as a statement. > > I think thats somewhat debatable. __fallthrough to me looks like an internal > > macro, whereas fallthrough looks like a comment someone forgot to /* */ > > > I'd rather see: > > switch (foo) { > case FOO: > bar |= baz; > fallthrough; > case BAR: > bar |= qux; > break; > default: > error(); > } > > than > > switch (foo) { > case FOO: > bar |= baz; > __fallthrough; > case BAR: > bar |= qux; > break; > default: > error(); > } > > or esoecially > > switch (foo) { > case FOO: > bar |= baz; > /* fallthrough > */; > case BAR: > bar |= qux; > break; > default: > error(); > } > > but <shrug>, bikeshed ahoy!... You can say that if you want, but you made the point that your think the macro as you have written is more readable. You example illustrates though that /* fallthrough */ is a pretty common comment, and not prefixing it makes it look like someone didn't add a comment that they meant to. The __ prefix is standard practice for defining macros to attributes (212 instances of it by my count). I don't mind rewriting the goto labels at all, but I think consistency is valuable. Neil > > >
On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 06:50 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: [] > You can say that if you want, but you made the point that your think the macro > as you have written is more readable. You example illustrates though that /* > fallthrough */ is a pretty common comment, and not prefixing it makes it look > like someone didn't add a comment that they meant to. The __ prefix is standard > practice for defining macros to attributes (212 instances of it by my count). I > don't mind rewriting the goto labels at all, but I think consistency is > valuable. Hey Neil. Perhaps you want to make this argument on the RFC patch thread that introduces the fallthrough pseudo-keyword. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:42:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 06:50 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > [] > > You can say that if you want, but you made the point that your think the macro > > as you have written is more readable. You example illustrates though that /* > > fallthrough */ is a pretty common comment, and not prefixing it makes it look > > like someone didn't add a comment that they meant to. The __ prefix is standard > > practice for defining macros to attributes (212 instances of it by my count). I > > don't mind rewriting the goto labels at all, but I think consistency is > > valuable. > > Hey Neil. > > Perhaps you want to make this argument on the RFC patch thread > that introduces the fallthrough pseudo-keyword. > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ > > > Sure, but it will have to wait for tomorrow at this point, as I need to run to an appointment. Best Neil
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. Can you or any other maintainer apply this patch or ack it so David Miller can apply it? Thanks.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > --- > net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > index 36bd8a6e82df..3fdcaa2fbf12 100644 > --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c > @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > case SCTP_PARAM_SET_PRIMARY: > if (net->sctp.addip_enable) > break; > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > case SCTP_PARAM_HOST_NAME_ADDRESS: > /* Tell the peer, we won't support this param. */ > @@ -2163,11 +2163,11 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > case SCTP_PARAM_FWD_TSN_SUPPORT: > if (ep->prsctp_enable) > break; > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > case SCTP_PARAM_RANDOM: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > /* SCTP-AUTH: Secion 6.1 > * If the random number is not 32 byte long the association > @@ -2184,7 +2184,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > case SCTP_PARAM_CHUNKS: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > /* SCTP-AUTH: Section 3.2 > * The CHUNKS parameter MUST be included once in the INIT or > @@ -2200,7 +2200,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > > case SCTP_PARAM_HMAC_ALGO: > if (!ep->auth_enable) > - goto fallthrough; > + goto unhandled; > > hmacs = (struct sctp_hmac_algo_param *)param.p; > n_elt = (ntohs(param.p->length) - > @@ -2223,7 +2223,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, > retval = SCTP_IERROR_ABORT; > } > break; > -fallthrough: > +unhandled: > default: > pr_debug("%s: unrecognized param:%d for chunk:%d\n", > __func__, ntohs(param.p->type), cid); > -- > 2.15.0 > > Yeah, it seems reasonable to me, though I'm still not comfortable with defining fallthrough as a macrotized keyword, but thats a debate for another thread Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:47:34 -0700 > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of >> > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > Can you or any other maintainer apply this patch > or ack it so David Miller can apply it? I, like others, don't like the lack of __ in the keyword. It's kind of rediculous the problems it creates to pollute the global namespace like that and yes also inconsistent with other shorthands for builtins.
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 16:19 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:47:34 -0700 > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > >> > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > Can you or any other maintainer apply this patch > > or ack it so David Miller can apply it? > > I, like others, don't like the lack of __ in the keyword. It's kind of > rediculous the problems it creates to pollute the global namespace like > that and yes also inconsistent with other shorthands for builtins. Please add that to the conversation on the RFC thread. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ In any case, fallthrough is not really a good label name for this use.
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 16:19 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:47:34 -0700 > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > >> > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > Can you or any other maintainer apply this patch > > or ack it so David Miller can apply it? > > I, like others, don't like the lack of __ in the keyword. It's kind of > rediculous the problems it creates to pollute the global namespace like > that and yes also inconsistent with other shorthands for builtins. Rejected? I think that's inappropriate. As coded, it's nothing like a fallthrough and the rename to unhandled is more descriptive.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 04:19:32PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 10:47:34 -0700 > > > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 08:16 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:32:43AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:04:37PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > >> > > > fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of > >> > > > fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. > > > > Can you or any other maintainer apply this patch > > or ack it so David Miller can apply it? > > I, like others, don't like the lack of __ in the keyword. It's kind of > rediculous the problems it creates to pollute the global namespace like > that and yes also inconsistent with other shorthands for builtins. > FWIW, I acked the sctp patch, because the use of the word fallthrough as a label, isn't that important to me, unhendled is just as good, so I'm ok with that change. But, as I stated in the other thread, I agree, making a macro out of fallthrough without clearly naming it using a macro convention like __ is not something I'm ok with Neil
From: Joe Perches > Sent: 01 August 2019 18:43 > On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 06:50 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:23:46PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > [] > > You can say that if you want, but you made the point that your think the macro > > as you have written is more readable. You example illustrates though that /* > > fallthrough */ is a pretty common comment, and not prefixing it makes it look > > like someone didn't add a comment that they meant to. The __ prefix is standard > > practice for defining macros to attributes (212 instances of it by my count). I > > don't mind rewriting the goto labels at all, but I think consistency is > > valuable. > > Hey Neil. > > Perhaps you want to make this argument on the RFC patch thread > that introduces the fallthrough pseudo-keyword. > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1108577/ ISTM that the only place where you need something other than the traditional comment is inside a #define where (almost certainly) the comments have to get stripped too early. Adding a 'fallthough' as unknown C keyword sucks... David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c index 36bd8a6e82df..3fdcaa2fbf12 100644 --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c @@ -2152,7 +2152,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, case SCTP_PARAM_SET_PRIMARY: if (net->sctp.addip_enable) break; - goto fallthrough; + goto unhandled; case SCTP_PARAM_HOST_NAME_ADDRESS: /* Tell the peer, we won't support this param. */ @@ -2163,11 +2163,11 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, case SCTP_PARAM_FWD_TSN_SUPPORT: if (ep->prsctp_enable) break; - goto fallthrough; + goto unhandled; case SCTP_PARAM_RANDOM: if (!ep->auth_enable) - goto fallthrough; + goto unhandled; /* SCTP-AUTH: Secion 6.1 * If the random number is not 32 byte long the association @@ -2184,7 +2184,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, case SCTP_PARAM_CHUNKS: if (!ep->auth_enable) - goto fallthrough; + goto unhandled; /* SCTP-AUTH: Section 3.2 * The CHUNKS parameter MUST be included once in the INIT or @@ -2200,7 +2200,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, case SCTP_PARAM_HMAC_ALGO: if (!ep->auth_enable) - goto fallthrough; + goto unhandled; hmacs = (struct sctp_hmac_algo_param *)param.p; n_elt = (ntohs(param.p->length) - @@ -2223,7 +2223,7 @@ static enum sctp_ierror sctp_verify_param(struct net *net, retval = SCTP_IERROR_ABORT; } break; -fallthrough: +unhandled: default: pr_debug("%s: unrecognized param:%d for chunk:%d\n", __func__, ntohs(param.p->type), cid);
fallthrough may become a pseudo reserved keyword so this only use of fallthrough is better renamed to allow it. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> --- net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)