On 2023-12-12 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
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
Ok. I'm not particularly keen on doing a full style cleanup; I can drop
the other break, for the sake of resolving the MISRA violation, so that
the cleanup can happen anytime.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
