From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>,
trix@redhat.com, kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
kuba@kernel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
alexandre.torgue@st.com, ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com,
johannes.berg@intel.com, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com,
luciano.coelho@intel.com, linuxwifi@intel.com,
chunkeey@googlemail.com, pkshih@realtek.com,
sara.sharon@intel.com, tova.mussai@intel.com,
nathan.errera@intel.com, lior2.cohen@intel.com, john@phrozen.org,
shaul.triebitz@intel.com, shahar.s.matityahu@intel.com,
Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, zhengbin13@huawei.com,
christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, yanaijie@huawei.com,
saurav.girepunje@gmail.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:38:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <715ddf72-978c-a525-0625-ea740a104f2a@embeddedor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5964d734e81c198421bb7f6516dabcad37c1740d.camel@perches.com>
On 10/19/20 11:20, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 10:54 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> 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, trix@redhat.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>> diff --git 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.
>
> As far as I can tell, clang 10.0.0 doesn't complain.
Oh, yeah. I didn't see the other "goto err;" in the if clause above. Clang doesn't
complain because there is actually no chance of any implicit fall-through.
--
Gustavo
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>,
trix@redhat.com, kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
kuba@kernel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
alexandre.torgue@st.com, ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com,
johannes.berg@intel.com, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com,
luciano.coelho@intel.com, linuxwifi@intel.com,
chunkeey@googlemail.com, pkshih@realtek.com,
sara.sharon@intel.com, tova.mussai@intel.com,
nathan.errera@intel.com, lior2.cohen@intel.com, john@phrozen.org,
shaul.triebitz@intel.com, shahar.s.matityahu@intel.com,
Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, zhengbin13@huawei.com,
christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, yanaijie@huawei.com,
saurav.girepunje@gmail.com
Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:38:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <715ddf72-978c-a525-0625-ea740a104f2a@embeddedor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5964d734e81c198421bb7f6516dabcad37c1740d.camel@perches.com>
On 10/19/20 11:20, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 10:54 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> 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, trix@redhat.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>> diff --git 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.
>
> As far as I can tell, clang 10.0.0 doesn't complain.
Oh, yeah. I didn't see the other "goto err;" in the if clause above. Clang doesn't
complain because there is actually no chance of any implicit fall-through.
--
Gustavo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>,
trix@redhat.com, kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
kuba@kernel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
alexandre.torgue@st.com, ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com,
johannes.berg@intel.com, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com,
luciano.coelho@intel.com, linuxwifi@intel.com,
chunkeey@googlemail.com, pkshih@realtek.com,
sara.sharon@intel.com, tova.mussai@intel.com,
nathan.errera@intel.com, lior2.cohen@intel.com, john@phrozen.org,
shaul.triebitz@intel.com, shahar.s.matityahu@intel.com,
Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, zhengbin13@huawei.com,
christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, yanaijie@huawei.com,
saurav.girepunje@gmail.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:38:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <715ddf72-978c-a525-0625-ea740a104f2a@embeddedor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5964d734e81c198421bb7f6516dabcad37c1740d.camel@perches.com>
On 10/19/20 11:20, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 10:54 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> 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, trix@redhat.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>>>>> diff --git 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.
>
> As far as I can tell, clang 10.0.0 doesn't complain.
Oh, yeah. I didn't see the other "goto err;" in the if clause above. Clang doesn't
complain because there is actually no chance of any implicit fall-through.
--
Gustavo
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-19 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-19 15:05 [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break trix
2020-10-19 15:05 ` trix
2020-10-19 15:05 ` trix
2020-10-19 15:14 ` Christian Lamparter
2020-10-19 15:14 ` Christian Lamparter
2020-10-19 15:14 ` Christian Lamparter
2020-10-19 15:21 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 15:21 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 15:21 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 15:54 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-10-19 15:54 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-10-19 15:54 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-10-19 16:20 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 16:20 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 16:36 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-19 16:36 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-19 16:38 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva [this message]
2020-10-19 16:38 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2020-10-19 16:38 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=715ddf72-978c-a525-0625-ea740a104f2a@embeddedor.com \
--to=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
--cc=Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@st.com \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=chunkeey@gmail.com \
--cc=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=johannes.berg@intel.com \
--cc=john@phrozen.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxwifi@intel.com \
--cc=lior2.cohen@intel.com \
--cc=luciano.coelho@intel.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=nathan.errera@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pkshih@realtek.com \
--cc=sara.sharon@intel.com \
--cc=saurav.girepunje@gmail.com \
--cc=shahar.s.matityahu@intel.com \
--cc=shaul.triebitz@intel.com \
--cc=tova.mussai@intel.com \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=yanaijie@huawei.com \
--cc=zhengbin13@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.