Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:12:40 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/an if_an.c if_an_isa.c if_an_pccard.c if_an_pci.c Message-ID: <20030411190555.J3595@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20030410.122906.62350043.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030410051257.D296537B408@hub.freebsd.org> <20030410.122906.62350043.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304101114320.31875-100000@root.org> > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes: > : > @@ -817,9 +806,11 @@ > : > */ > : > ether_ifattach(ifp, sc->arpcom.ac_enaddr); > : > callout_handle_init(&sc->an_stat_ch); > : > - AN_UNLOCK(sc); > : > > : > return(0); > : > +fail:; > : > + mtx_destroy(&sc->an_mtx); > : > + return(error); > : > } > : > > : > static void > : > : Extra ; after "fail:" > > I feel that it isn't a mistake. A label labels a statement, It is not a mistake in the same way that an extra semicolon on a case statement is not a mistake. It is just a style bug. > and this > label labels a null statement on purpose in case the statements after > it disappear. A C programmer would not remove the statements without also removing the label (since it is part of the first statement), and the statements can't disappear here since at least a return statement is needed to return a value. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030411190555.J3595>