What do you feel when you see the code snippet like that shown below? switch (c) { case X: ... ... return 1; break; case Y: ... ... return 1; break; }
All in all, in many ways I'm not feeling well. I think a small change is needed here. This patch aims to eliminate the strange combination of *return* and *break* in the above switch-statement. Signed-off-by: Chen Yucong <sla...@gmail.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c index bd9ccda..5915be5 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c @@ -1618,15 +1618,15 @@ static int __mcheck_cpu_ancient_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) switch (c->x86_vendor) { case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: intel_p5_mcheck_init(c); - return 1; break; case X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR: winchip_mcheck_init(c); - return 1; break; + default: + return 0; } - return 0; + return 1; } static void __mcheck_cpu_init_vendor(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) -- 1.7.10.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/