From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756195AbaHEHML (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:12:11 -0400 Received: from mx01-fr.bfs.de ([193.174.231.67]:20123 "EHLO mx01-fr.bfs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756006AbaHEHMI (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:12:08 -0400 Message-ID: <53E083B8.4090008@bfs.de> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:11:52 +0200 From: walter harms Reply-To: wharms@bfs.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 SUSE/3.0.11 Thunderbird/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrey Utkin CC: davem@davemloft.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c: drop stray break operator References: <1407185261-1799-1-git-send-email-andrey.krieger.utkin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1407185261-1799-1-git-send-email-andrey.krieger.utkin@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 04.08.2014 22:47, schrieb Andrey Utkin: > This commit is a guesswork, but it seems to make sense to drop this > break, as otherwise the following line is never executed and becomes > dead code. And that following line actually saves the result of > local calculation by the pointer given in function argument. So the > proposed change makes sense if this code in the whole makes sense (but I > am unable to analyze it in the whole). > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81641 > Reported-by: David Binderman > Signed-off-by: Andrey Utkin > --- > arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c b/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c > index aa4d55b..5ce8f2f 100644 > --- a/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c > +++ b/arch/sparc/math-emu/math_32.c > @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static int do_one_mathemu(u32 insn, unsigned long *pfsr, unsigned long *fregs) > case 0: fsr = *pfsr; > if (IR == -1) IR = 2; > /* fcc is always fcc0 */ The patch looks ok, but can somebody comment on this comment ? what "fcc" ? should it be a fsr ? > - fsr &= ~0xc00; fsr |= (IR << 10); break; > + fsr &= ~0xc00; fsr |= (IR << 10); nitpicking: fsr &= ~0xc00; fsr |= (IR << 10); It is better readable. re, wh > *pfsr = fsr; > break; > case 1: rd->s = IR; break;