On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 02:10:40AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 08:02 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:53:40AM +0000, Pkshih wrote: > > > On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 22:37 +0000, Colin Ian King wrote: > > > > > > When I check this patch, I find there is no 'break' for default case. > > > Do we need one? like > > > > > > @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ void rtl_cam_empty_entry(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, u8 uc_index) > > > break; > > > default: > > > ul_encalgo = rtlpriv->cfg->maps[SEC_CAM_AES]; > > > + break; > > > > No, it's not necessary. The choice of style is up to the original > > developer. > > every case should have one. > > Documentation/process/deprecated.rst: > > All switch/case blocks must end in one of: > > * break; > * fallthrough; > * continue; > * goto <label>; > * return [expression]; > I doubt that's what Kees had in mind when he wrote that. The extra break statement doesn't improve readability. It also doesn't hurt readability. There is no reason to add a break statement after a default case. No one is going to add another case after the default case. And if they do then a dozen static analysis tools will complain about the missing break. I looked through the code to see if break statements were more common than non-break statement code. Both seem pretty common. I got bored really quickly though and my sample might not have been representative. regards, dan carpenter
