[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071001143108.GA5648@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:31:08 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...paulia.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Em Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> Quoting YOSHIFUJI Hideaki:
> |
> | > [TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
> | >
> | > Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
> | > ---
> | > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> | > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> | > @@ -3129,6 +3129,7 @@ static void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk)
> | > return;
> | > default:
> | > sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
> | > + break;
> | > }
> | >
> | > if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
> |
> | NAK; it is not required at all.
> |
> | --yoshfuji
> |
> If it were true what you are saying then the statement
>
> `sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;'
>
> can go as well since it will always be overridden.
Gerrit,
It is not required. The statement you mention will be executed
when the sk_state is not one of TCP_SYN_SENT, TCP_CLOSE_WAIT or
TCP_CLOSE.
A 'break' is only needed in a label block if it is not the last
one.
- Arnaldo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists