[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171021202100.Horde.z-7P99HVhWm0m3hXj5cOjur@gator4166.hostgator.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:21:00 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs
Quoting David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>:
> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500
>
>> @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct
>> work_struct *work)
>> case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1:
>> if (rxflags->peer_done_writing)
>> sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2;
>> - /* fall through to check for closing */
>> + /* to check for closing */
>> + /* fall through */
>
> Gustavo please look at what you are doing to the code.
>
> This was a nice easy to read sentence in the comment, and now
> you've chopped it up into two pieces and made it awkward and
> more difficult to read.
You're right.
What about this instead:
/* fall through */
/* to check for closing */
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Powered by blists - more mailing lists