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]

Message-ID: <fb38b96a-b666-1a6d-211d-b79278a8d878@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 10:54:29 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>, 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,
        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 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@...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?

Clang would definitely complain about this.

>>>   		default:
>>>   			break;
>>>   		}
> 
> No, though the code would be clearer like:
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> index 5bd35c147e19..233fa072d96d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> @@ -867,10 +867,8 @@ int p54_parse_eeprom(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, void *eeprom, int len)
>  					 "test!\n");
>  				err = -ENOMSG;
>  				goto err;
> -			} else {
> -				goto good_eeprom;
>  			}
> -			break;
> +			goto good_eeprom;
>  		default:
>  			break;
>  		}
> 
> 

This is much better because it'd avoid any complain from Clang.

--
Gustavo