linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:14:31 +0200
From:   Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
To:     trix@...hat.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com,
        luciano.coelho@...el.com, linuxwifi@...el.com,
        chunkeey@...glemail.com, pkshih@...ltek.com, sara.sharon@...el.com,
        tova.mussai@...el.com, nathan.errera@...el.com,
        lior2.cohen@...el.com, john@...ozen.org, shaul.triebitz@...el.com,
        shahar.s.matityahu@...el.com, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        zhengbin13@...wei.com, christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr,
        yanaijie@...wei.com, joe@...ches.com, saurav.girepunje@...il.com
Cc:     ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break

On 19/10/2020 17:05, trix@...hat.com wrote:
> From: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>
> 
> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>

> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> index 5bd35c147e19..3ca9d26df174 100644
> --- 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?
>   		default:
>   			break;
>   		}

Cheers,
Christian