Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: remove unneeded break
To:     trix@redhat.com, kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com,
        alexandre.torgue@st.com, ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com,
        johannes.berg@intel.com, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com,
        luciano.coelho@intel.com, linuxwifi@intel.com,
        chunkeey@googlemail.com, pkshih@realtek.com, sara.sharon@intel.com,
        tova.mussai@intel.com, nathan.errera@intel.com,
        lior2.cohen@intel.com, john@phrozen.org, shaul.triebitz@intel.com,
        shahar.s.matityahu@intel.com, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net,
        zhengbin13@huawei.com, christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr,
        yanaijie@huawei.com, joe@perches.com, saurav.girepunje@gmail.com
Cc:     ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20201019150507.20574-1-trix@redhat.com>
From:   Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b31478ea-979a-1c9c-65db-32325233a715@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:14:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.3.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201019150507.20574-1-trix@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 19/10/2020 17:05, trix@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> 
> A break is not needed if it is preceded by a return or goto
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>

> 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;
>   		}

Cheers,
Christian