Re: [PATCH] IB/qib: remove superfluous fallthrough statements

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@gmail.com>
Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@purestorage.com>,
	linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/qib: remove superfluous fallthrough statements
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:01:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36066d75-899e-c9ca-835e-0040659c914b@embeddedor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <777e01f8dc9bd35e8b7bdf1b5181d0d13b86d8b9.camel@perches.com>

On 8/25/20 11:47, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 11:49 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> On 8/25/20 11:26, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 11:19 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/20 10:51, Alex Dewar wrote:
>>>>> Commit 36a8f01cd24b ("IB/qib: Add congestion control agent implementation")
>>>>> erroneously marked a couple of switch cases as /* FALLTHROUGH */, which
>>>>> were later converted to fallthrough statements by commit df561f6688fe
>>>>> ("treewide: Use fallthrough pseudo-keyword"). This triggered a Coverity
>>>>> warning about unreachable code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove the fallthrough statements and replace the mass of gotos with
>>>>> simple return statements to make the code terser and less bug-prone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be split up into two separate patches: one to address the
>>>> fallthrough markings, and another one for the gotos.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's necessary to break this into multiple patches.
>>> Logical changes in a single patch are just fine, micro patches
>>> aren't that useful.
>>>
>>
>> There is a reason for this. Read the changelog text and review the patch.
> 
> What makes you think I didn't already do that?
> 

You would have noticed this should be two patches.

> I think your desire for micropatches is unnecessary.
> 

You might be generalizing. My 'desire' here is justified and specific.

Thanks
--
Gustavo