[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9900ca30-4d57-4a38-b319-b76d57038e52@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:01:22 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Osama Abdelkader <osama.abdelkader@...il.com>
Cc: smostafa@...gle.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Remove unreachable break after die
On 27/11/25 2:50 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 12:26:20AM +0200, Osama Abdelkader wrote:
>> die() never returns, the break is unreachable in arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>
> Is the break causing some problem, e.g. a compiler warning?
>
> If not, then I don't see a reason to remove the break.
>
> There are many other instances of "die(...); break" throughout the
> kernel, and this doesn't seem to be speecial.
Agree with Mark. From switch case semantics perspective a break is expected
here regardless what happens to control flow.
>
> Mark.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Osama Abdelkader <osama.abdelkader@...il.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> index 681939ef5d16..81dd2d7759eb 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -1003,7 +1003,6 @@ int bug_brk_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
>> switch (report_bug(regs->pc, regs)) {
>> case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_BUG:
>> die("Oops - BUG", regs, esr);
>> - break;
>>
>> case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN:
>> break;
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists