From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: der.herr@hofr.at (Nicholas Mc Guire)
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 10:40:37 +0000
Subject: if/else block default coding style question
Message-ID: <20161008104037.GA493@osadl.at>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org


Hi !

 There are quite a few places (roughly 90) in the kernel where an 
 if/else if/else block repeats the last "case" presumably as 
 default e.g.  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192c/dm_common.c

   if ((rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_service == BT_BUSY) &&
       (rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_rssi_state &
        BT_RSSI_STATE_NORMAL_POWER)) {
           rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, 0xa0);
   } else if ((rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_service ==
               BT_OTHER_ACTION) && (rtlpriv->mac80211.mode <
               WIRELESS_MODE_N_24G) &&
               (rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_rssi_state &
               BT_RSSI_STATE_SPECIAL_LOW)) {
           rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, 0xa0);
   } else if (rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_service == BT_PAN) {
           rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte);
   } else {
           rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte);
   }

 with the last else if and else being identical.
 So the question is if this is accepted coding style (notably 
 without a coment) or if things like this should be flagged.

 I personally find this irritating as (without a comment) it is hard to say
 if this is a trivial type -> missed case, or if this is
 intended as a default behavior.

 So - before starting to generate a series of patches - should stuff like 
 this be flagged ?

thx!
hofrat