On 10/19/20 10:21, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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?
Clang would definitely complain about this.
>>> 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;
> }
>
>
This is much better because it'd avoid any complain from Clang.
--
Gustavo
