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/

Reply via email to