On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:26 PM Vaittinen, Matti > <Matti.Vaittinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:33 -0700, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > - break; > > My personal taste is also to omit these breaks but I am pretty sure > > I > > saw some tooling issuing a warning about falling through the > > switch- > > case back when I wrote this. Most probably checkpatch didn't like > > that > > back then. Anyways - if you have no warnings from any of the tools > > - > > this indeed looks better (to me) without the break :) > > JFYI: it's a clang which actually *is* complaining for an extra > break. > Oh. I just replied before seeing this. So actually, checkpatch complains about missing break and clang about existing break. I'm getting much more nagging at work than at home! Best Regards Matti