similar to: v2.2.32 release candidate released

Timo Sirainen wrote: > There are various changes in this release that can be used to significantly reduce disk IO with: > 1) NFS storage especially, but I guess also other remote filesystems and even some with local disks > 2) When mail storage and INDEX storage are separated Thanks for these changes! Big win for my setup. My servers are not overly stressed, but how much performance

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.32.tar.gz https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.32.tar.gz.sig Two more fixes since rc2. And repeating: There are various changes in this release that can be used to significantly reduce disk IO with: 1) NFS storage especially, but I guess also other remote filesystems and even some with local disks 2) When mail storage and INDEX storage are

https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.32.tar.gz https://dovecot.org/releases/2.2/dovecot-2.2.32.tar.gz.sig Two more fixes since rc2. And repeating: There are various changes in this release that can be used to significantly reduce disk IO with: 1) NFS storage especially, but I guess also other remote filesystems and even some with local disks 2) When mail storage and INDEX storage are

On 16 Aug 2017, at 8.37, Alexey Asemov (Alex/AT) <lists at alex-at.ru> wrote: > > Hello Timo, > > I am quite eager to test it, but I don't know if these changes can be applicable for my configuration (it is shared storage one, any mdbox on NFS can be accessed by multiple servers, I made it so it's mostly accessed by one, but at certain conditions multiple servers still

Hello Timo, I am quite eager to test it, but I don't know if these changes can be applicable for my configuration (it is shared storage one, any mdbox on NFS can be accessed by multiple servers, I made it so it's mostly accessed by one, but at certain conditions multiple servers still access mailbox simultaneously). So if possible I want to ask few dumb questions: - I assume

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. This patch fixes the following warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c:1434:53: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough.

Hi. I upgraded my main build host and the clang -Werror builds started failing. This is because clang 10's -Wimplicit-fallthrough doesn't understand /* FALLTHROUGH */ but rather requires __attribute__((fallthrough)): clang -Wall -O2 [...] -Wimplicit-fallthrough [...] -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c /openbsd-compat/base64.c

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

Hi all, This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just letting the code fall through to the next case. Notice that in order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, this change[1]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > > order to enable

Hi, Please drop this, as I have included this fix into the following patch, which addresses all the expected fall-throughs in drivers/gpu/drm: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1042856/ Thanks -- Gustavo On 2/11/19 12:58 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > This

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:30:40 -0800 Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:53:44AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > > > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. > > > > > > In preparation to enable

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:21:39 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > This series aims to fix almost all remaining fall-through warnings in > order to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang. > > In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for Clang, explicitly > add multiple break/goto/return/fallthrough statements instead of just > letting the code fall through to the next case.

I am nuilding that now. CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/opt/llvm11-git \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_EH=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_RTTI=ON \ -DLLVM_HOST_TRIPLE=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu \ -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="AMDGPU;MSP430;WebAssembly;X86" \

Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended fall-through locations between switch cases. *INTRODUCTION* The switch construct of C/C++ languages allows fall-throughs between switch labels when control flow is not directed

Hi, Using master at b0a1c0b72c9c61f8b0a223e08f43498abb64f5e8, I cannot build LLVM. I configured with: CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=$HOME/opt/llvm11-git \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DLLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB=ON \ -DLLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_EH=ON \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_RTTI=ON \

I came across a weird-looking use of LLVM_FALLTHROUGH which I think is completely spurious, but I figured I should check with the group mind before ripping it out. Basically, if you have multiple cases with no code in between, you do *not* need LLVM_FALLTHROUGH, right? switch (Foo) { case Bar1: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH; // not needed case Bar2: some code; return; case Bar3: