Re: [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

[Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:42 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This is a upcoming change to clean up a new warning treewide.
> > > I am wondering if the change could be one mega patch (see below) or
> > > normal patch per file about 100 patches or somewhere half way by 
> > > collecting
> > > early acks.
> > 
> > Please break it up into one-patch-per-subsystem, like normal, and get it
> > merged that way.
> > 
> > Sending us a patch, without even a diffstat to review, isn't going to
> > get you very far...
> 
> Tom,
> If you're able to automate this cleanup, I suggest checking in a
> script that can be run on a directory.  Then for each subsystem you
> can say in your commit "I ran scripts/fix_whatever.py on this subdir."
>  Then others can help you drive the tree wide cleanup.  Then we can
> enable -Wunreachable-code-break either by default, or W=2 right now
> might be a good idea.
> 
> Ah, George (gbiv@, cc'ed), did an analysis recently of
> `-Wunreachable-code-loop-increment`, `-Wunreachable-code-break`, and
> `-Wunreachable-code-return` for Android userspace.  From the review:
> ```
> Spoilers: of these, it seems useful to turn on
> -Wunreachable-code-loop-increment and -Wunreachable-code-return by
> default for Android
> ...
> While these conventions about always having break arguably became
> obsolete when we enabled -Wfallthrough, my sample turned up zero
> potential bugs caught by this warning, and we'd need to put a lot of
> effort into getting a clean tree. So this warning doesn't seem to be
> worth it.
> ```
> Looks like there's an order of magnitude of `-Wunreachable-code-break`
> than the other two.
> 
> We probably should add all 3 to W=2 builds (wrapped in cc-option).
> I've filed https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180 to
> follow up on.

I suggest using W=1 as people that are doing cleanups
generally use that and not W=123 or any other style.

Every other use of W= is still quite noisy and these
code warnings are relatively trivially to fix up.