[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710011825.30434@strip-the-willow>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:25:30 +0100
From: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...paulia.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Arnaldo, Al Viro, and Yoshifuji -
sorry for having wasted your time with this one. You are right, that was complete nonsense.
I don't know where my mind was - even my test program used to `prove' this was screwed up.
So nothing wrong here and thank you very much for your clarifying comments.
| > | > --- 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