From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:21:00 -0500 > > Quoting David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> 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 */ I'm surprised gcc cares if it's all on one line or not, actually. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
