From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932340AbdJVBIk (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:08:40 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:56908 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932319AbdJVBIj (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:08:39 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 02:08:35 +0100 (WEST) Message-Id: <20171022.020835.2065879880300400886.davem@davemloft.net> To: garsilva@embeddedor.com Cc: ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smc_close: mark expected switch fall-throughs From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20171019220244.GA22041@embeddedor.com> References: <20171019220244.GA22041@embeddedor.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Sat, 21 Oct 2017 18:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:02:44 -0500 > @@ -360,7 +360,8 @@ static void smc_close_passive_work(struct work_struct *work) > case SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT1: > if (rxflags->peer_done_writing) > sk->sk_state = SMC_PEERCLOSEWAIT2; > - /* fall through to check for closing */ > + /* to check for closing */ > + /* fall through */ Gustavo please look at what you are doing to the code. This was a nice easy to read sentence in the comment, and now you've chopped it up into two pieces and made it awkward and more difficult to read.