Re: [XEN PATCH 6/7] x86/platform: removed break to address MISRA C:2012 Rule 2.1

[Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2023-12-12 11:13, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.12.2023 11:30, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > The break statement is redundant, hence it can be removed.
> Except ...
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
> > @@ -723,7 +723,6 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(
> >
> >          ret = continue_hypercall_on_cpu(
> >              0, cpu_down_helper, (void *)(unsigned long)cpu);
> > -        break;
> >      }
> >      break;
> ... it wants to be the other break that is removed, imo. Andrew, Roger,
> what do you think? There are many such (again: imo) oddly placed 
> break-s
> in that switch() ... In some cases there are also inner scopes without
> there being new local variables in there. IOW imo throughout this
> switch()
> - pointless inner scopes want dropping,
> - all "main" break-s want to have the same indentation.
>
> Jan
Ok. I'm not particularly keen on doing a full style cleanup; I can drop 
the other break, for the sake of resolving the MISRA violation, so that 
the cleanup can happen anytime.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)