From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from gateway31.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.143.234]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kUY9x-0003uM-Uk for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:37:23 +0000 Received: from cm14.websitewelcome.com (cm14.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.7]) by gateway31.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58A820BA401 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:32:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break References: <20201019150507.20574-1-trix@redhat.com> <859112e91c3d221dc599e381dbaecb90dd6467a1.camel@perches.com> <5964d734e81c198421bb7f6516dabcad37c1740d.camel@perches.com> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Message-ID: <715ddf72-978c-a525-0625-ea740a104f2a@embeddedor.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:38:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5964d734e81c198421bb7f6516dabcad37c1740d.camel@perches.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Joe Perches , Christian Lamparter , 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 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 >>>>> >>>>> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix >>>>> 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