Re: [PATCH] : eliminate code duplication in kernel/tracepoint.c

[Ingo Molnar]

* Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 11:57, Anirban Sinha wrote:
> > OK, here's the modified patch:
> > 
> >>From 52cea59801ac5b772c49ae995f4df1940a0d88fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Anirban Sinha <asinha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:52:35 -0700
> > Subject: cleanup: eliminate code duplication in kernel/tracepoint.c
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Anirban Sinha <asinha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/tracepoint.c |    4 ----
> >  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/tracepoint.c b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > index 1ef5d3a..35eed9c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > @@ -554,13 +554,9 @@ int tracepoint_module_notify(struct notifier_block
> > *self,
> >  
> >  	switch (val) {
> >  	case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
> > -		tracepoint_update_probe_range(mod->tracepoints,
> > -			mod->tracepoints + mod->num_tracepoints);
> > -		break;
> >  	case MODULE_STATE_GOING:
> >  		tracepoint_update_probe_range(mod->tracepoints,
> >  			mod->tracepoints + mod->num_tracepoints);
> > -		break;
> 
> I still think it's better not to remove this break. every "case" 
> should have a break or a return, expect for the falling throught 
> cases.

Correct. That might seem like a superfluous statement, but when we 
add new cases it stays robust while with the missing break one can 
create an unintended fall-through codepath.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/