From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754498AbZHYF14 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:27:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754042AbZHYF1y (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:27:54 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:52592 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754001AbZHYF1y (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:27:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4A93760C.4020107@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:26:36 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anirban Sinha CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] : eliminate code duplication in kernel/tracepoint.c References: <4A933C55.4090808@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 11:57, Anirban Sinha wrote: > OK, here's the modified patch: > >>>From 52cea59801ac5b772c49ae995f4df1940a0d88fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Anirban Sinha > Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:52:35 -0700 > Subject: cleanup: eliminate code duplication in kernel/tracepoint.c > > > Signed-off-by: Anirban Sinha > --- > kernel/tracepoint.c | 4 ---- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/tracepoint.c b/kernel/tracepoint.c > index 1ef5d3a..35eed9c 100644 > --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c > +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c > @@ -554,13 +554,9 @@ int tracepoint_module_notify(struct notifier_block > *self, > > switch (val) { > case MODULE_STATE_COMING: > - tracepoint_update_probe_range(mod->tracepoints, > - mod->tracepoints + mod->num_tracepoints); > - break; > case MODULE_STATE_GOING: > tracepoint_update_probe_range(mod->tracepoints, > mod->tracepoints + mod->num_tracepoints); > - break; I still think it's better not to remove this break. every "case" should have a break or a return, expect for the falling throught cases. > } > return 0; > }