Re: [PATCH 3/9] Removed bogus 'fall-thru' comments

[Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>]

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> > Fall-through is expected outside a switch statement.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c |    2 --
> >  drivers/net/sfc/rx.c     |    1 -
> >  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c b/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> > index 46db549..9cac344 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> > @@ -2468,14 +2468,12 @@ int falcon_probe_nic(struct efx_nic *efx)
> >   fail5:
> >  	falcon_free_buffer(efx, &efx->irq_status);
> >   fail4:
> > -	/* fall-thru */
> >   fail3:
> >  	if (nic_data->pci_dev2) {
> >  		pci_dev_put(nic_data->pci_dev2);
> >  		nic_data->pci_dev2 = NULL;
> >  	}
> >   fail2:
> > -	/* fall-thru */
> >   fail1:
> >  	kfree(efx->nic_data);
> >  	return rc;
> 
> Is there really any point in keeping those extra goto targets? I'd suggest 
> that you simply eliminate the extra ones completely.

I think we'll do that at some point, along with giving them meaningful
names rather than numbers.  But not right now.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.