Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 17:14 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 17:05, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com>
> > 
> > A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <t...@redhat.com>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c 
> > b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > index 5bd35c147e19..3ca9d26df174 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > @@ -870,7 +870,6 @@ int p54_parse_eeprom(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, void 
> > *eeprom, int len)
> >                     } else {
> >                             goto good_eeprom;
> >                     }
> > -                   break;
> Won't the compiler (gcc) now complain about a missing fallthrough annotation?
> >             default:
> >                     break;
> >             }

No, though the code would be clearer like:
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c 
b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
index 5bd35c147e19..233fa072d96d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
@@ -867,10 +867,8 @@ int p54_parse_eeprom(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, void 
*eeprom, int len)
                                         "test!\n");
                                err = -ENOMSG;
                                goto err;
-                       } else {
-                               goto good_eeprom;
                        }
-                       break;
+                       goto good_eeprom;
                default:
                        break;
                }