Home » Mailing list archives » linux-netdev » 2007 » October » 1

Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement

Previous thread: [PATCH 2/4] [TCP]: fix comments that got messed up during code move by Ilpo Järvinen on Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:29 am. (6 messages)

Next thread: [PATCH] make netlink processing routines semi-synchronious (inspired by rtnl) by Denis V. Lunev on Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:40 am. (2 messages)
[view original message]
From: Gerrit Renker
Subject: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:32 am

[TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement

Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
---
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -3129,6 +3129,7 @@ static void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk)
 			return;
 		default:
 			sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
+			break;
 	}
 
 	if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 6:20 am

NAK; it is not required at all.

--yoshfuji
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Gerrit Renker
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 6:39 am

Quoting YOSHIFUJI Hideaki:
| 
|  > [TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
|  > 
|  > Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
|  > ---
|  > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > @@ -3129,6 +3129,7 @@ static void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk)
|  >  			return;
|  >  		default:
|  >  			sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
|  > +			break;
|  >  	}
|  >  
|  >  	if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
|  
|  NAK; it is not required at all.
|  
|  --yoshfuji
|  
If it were true what you are saying then the statement 

       `sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;' 

can go as well since it will always be overridden.
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 7:31 am

Gerrit,

        It is not required. The statement you mention will be executed
when the sk_state is not one of TCP_SYN_SENT, TCP_CLOSE_WAIT or
TCP_CLOSE.

	A 'break' is only needed in a label block if it is not the last
one.

- Arnaldo
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Gerrit Renker
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 10:25 am

Arnaldo, Al Viro, and Yoshifuji -

sorry for having wasted your time with this one. You are right, that was complete nonsense. 
I don't know where my mind was - even my test program used to `prove' this was screwed up.

So nothing wrong here and thank you very much for your clarifying comments.

|  > |  > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > |  > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > |  > @@ -3129,6 +3129,7 @@ static void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk)
|  > |  >  			return;
|  > |  >  		default:
|  > |  >  			sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
|  > |  > +			break;
|  > |  >  	}
|  > |  >  
|  > |  >  	if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD))
|  > |  
|  > |  NAK; it is not required at all.
|  > |  
|  > |  --yoshfuji
|  > |  
|  > If it were true what you are saying then the statement 
|  > 
|  >        `sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;' 
|  > 
|  > can go as well since it will always be overridden.
|  
|  Gerrit,
|  
|          It is not required. The statement you mention will be executed
|  when the sk_state is not one of TCP_SYN_SENT, TCP_CLOSE_WAIT or
|  TCP_CLOSE.
|  
|  	A 'break' is only needed in a label block if it is not the last
|  one.
|  
|  - Arnaldo
|  
|  
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Al Viro
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:34 am

Huh?  Why on the Earth would that be a problem?
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Gerrit Renker
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 6:02 am

Quoting Al Viro:
|  On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Gerrit Renker wrote:
|  > [TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
|  > 
|  > Signed-off-by: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
|  > ---
|  > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
|  > @@ -3129,6 +3129,7 @@ static void tcp_reset(struct sock *sk)
|  >  			return;
|  >  		default:
|  >  			sk->sk_err = ECONNRESET;
|  > +			break;
|  >  	}
|  
|  Huh?  Why on the Earth would that be a problem?
|  
|  
Sorry what is your question?
-


[ message continues ]
[view original message]
From: Al Viro
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][TCP]: break missing at end of switch statement
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 6:17 am

Why the hell is $Subject a problem that warrants any patches whatsoever?
-


[ message continues ]
Previous thread: [PATCH 2/4] [TCP]: fix comments that got messed up during code move by Ilpo Järvinen on Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:29 am. (6 messages)

Next thread: [PATCH] make netlink processing routines semi-synchronious (inspired by rtnl) by Denis V. Lunev on Monday, October 1, 2007 - 5:40 am. (2 messages)