From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8726841
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  4 Sep 2017 12:32:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 04 Sep 2017 03:32:41 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,474,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="1214450738"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.24])
 by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Sep 2017 03:32:39 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:32:36 +0100
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:32:36 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>
Cc: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20170904103236.GC16984@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20170823150027.70565-1-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
 <E923DB57A917B54B9182A2E928D00FA640C73D49@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20170904102407.GA16984@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170904102407.GA16984@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/x86: implement x86 specific tsc hz
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 10:32:42 -0000

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:24:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:38:08AM +0100, Van Haaren, Harry wrote:
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 4:00 PM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> > > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/x86: implement x86 specific tsc hz
> > > 
<snip>
> > +
> > > +static uint32_t
> > > +check_model_wsm_nhm(uint8_t model)
> > > +{
> > > +	switch (model) {
> > > +	/* Westmere */
> > > +	case 0x25:
> > > +	case 0x2C:
> > > +	case 0x2F:
> > > +	/* Nehalem */
> > > +	case 0x1E:
> > > +	case 0x1F:
> > > +	case 0x1A:
> > > +	case 0x2E:
> > > +		return 1;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > DPDK coding standards say /* fallthrough */ comments required when falling through cases.
> > In this case I feel it would reduce readability, more than it improves it, but I recall
> > some recent gcc/clang prints warnings if no /* fallthrough */ comments exist.. opinions?
> > 
> > Same for switch() below.
> >
> 
> I see no warnings in this case with gcc 7.x. I don't think it counts as
> a fallthrough unless there is code after the label - i.e. multiple
> labels though technically fallthrough are treated as such by compiler.
> 
apologies, typo: ... are NOT treated as such ...