On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 17:14 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 17:05, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > index 5bd35c147e19..3ca9d26df174 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
> > @@ -870,7 +870,6 @@ int p54_parse_eeprom(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, void *eeprom, int len)
> > } else {
> > goto good_eeprom;
> > }
> > - break;
> Won't the compiler (gcc) now complain about a missing fallthrough annotation?
> > default:
> > break;
> > }
No, though the code would be clearer like:
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
index 5bd35c147e19..233fa072d96d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intersil/p54/eeprom.c
@@ -867,10 +867,8 @@ int p54_parse_eeprom(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, void *eeprom, int len)
"test!\n");
err = -ENOMSG;
goto err;
- } else {
- goto good_eeprom;
}
- break;
+ goto good_eeprom;
default:
break;
}
