[PATCH] mtd: cfi_util: mark expected switch fall-throughs
miquel.raynal at bootlin.com
Tue Apr 16 10:24:08 PDT 2019
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote on Mon, 15 Apr
2019 07:57:11 -0500:
> Hi Miquel,
> On 4/15/19 3:44 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Gustavo,
> > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote on Wed, 10 Apr
> > 2019 16:16:51 -0500:
> >> Hi all,
> >> If no one cares I'll add this to my tree for 5.2.
> > Which tree are you talking about?
> This one:
> > Please let the MTD maintainers take patches through their tree. We
> > might be late but this is definitely not a good reason to bypass us.
> It's a bit confusing when patches are being ignored for more than two
Patches posted at -rc6 right before the last release? Come on! Gustavo,
we always spend more time for you than for other contributors because we
do not trust your changes. We could apply them blindly but we don't do
that for other (worthy) contributions, so why shall we do it for you?
I think you could at least flag these changes as "automatic and
unverified" in the commit log so that when git blaming, people could
know that the additional explicit /* fallthrough */ comment might be
wrong and was just added in order to limit the number of warnings when
enabling the extra GCC warning.
> Certainly, Richard Weinberger replied to this one. But I couldn't
> find a tree to which this patch was applied, in case it actually
> It's a common practice for maintainers to reply saying that a patch
> has been finally applied, and in most cases they also explicitly
> mention the tree and branch to which it was applied. All this info
> is really helpful for people working all over the tree.
It is common practice for contributors to understand what they
are doing before submitting a change and this is something that you
clearly don't try to do.
More information about the linux-mtd