Re: [PATCH] arm64: Remove unreachable break after die

[Osama Abdelkader <osama.abdelkader@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 08:01:22AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27/11/25 2:50 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 12:26:20AM +0200, Osama Abdelkader wrote:
> >> die() never returns, the break is unreachable in arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> > 
> > Is the break causing some problem, e.g. a compiler warning?
> > 
> > If not, then I don't see a reason to remove the break.
> > 
> > There are many other instances of "die(...); break" throughout the
> > kernel, and this doesn't seem to be speecial.
> 
> Agree with Mark. From switch case semantics perspective a break is expected
> here regardless what happens to control flow.
> 
> > 
> > Mark.
> > 
> >> Signed-off-by: Osama Abdelkader <osama.abdelkader@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 1 -
> >>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> >> index 681939ef5d16..81dd2d7759eb 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> >> @@ -1003,7 +1003,6 @@ int bug_brk_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
> >>  	switch (report_bug(regs->pc, regs)) {
> >>  	case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_BUG:
> >>  		die("Oops - BUG", regs, esr);
> >> -		break;
> >>  
> >>  	case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN:
> >>  		break;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.43.0
> >>
> > 
> 

I see, I agree too.

Thanks.
Osama