On 11.12.2023 11:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > The break statement is redundant, hence it can be removed.
Except ... > --- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c > @@ -723,7 +723,6 @@ ret_t do_platform_op( > > ret = continue_hypercall_on_cpu( > 0, cpu_down_helper, (void *)(unsigned long)cpu); > - break; > } > break; ... it wants to be the other break that is removed, imo. Andrew, Roger, what do you think? There are many such (again: imo) oddly placed break-s in that switch() ... In some cases there are also inner scopes without there being new local variables in there. IOW imo throughout this switch() - pointless inner scopes want dropping, - all "main" break-s want to have the same indentation. Jan
