Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On 10/19/20 10:21, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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?

Clang would definitely complain about this.

>>>   		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;
>  		}
> 
> 

This is much better because it'd avoid any complain from Clang.

--
Gustavo