[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805072328570.23091@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:30:08 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] Removed bogus 'fall-thru' comments
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Fall-through is expected outside a switch statement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c | 2 --
> drivers/net/sfc/rx.c | 1 -
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c b/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> index 46db549..9cac344 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c
> @@ -2468,14 +2468,12 @@ int falcon_probe_nic(struct efx_nic *efx)
> fail5:
> falcon_free_buffer(efx, &efx->irq_status);
> fail4:
> - /* fall-thru */
> fail3:
> if (nic_data->pci_dev2) {
> pci_dev_put(nic_data->pci_dev2);
> nic_data->pci_dev2 = NULL;
> }
> fail2:
> - /* fall-thru */
> fail1:
> kfree(efx->nic_data);
> return rc;
Is there really any point in keeping those extra goto targets? I'd suggest
that you simply eliminate the extra ones completely.
--
i.
--
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