From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 11 02:12:54 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9CBA837B401; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CA4A943F93; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA24201;
	Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:12:41 +1000
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 19:12:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030410.122906.62350043.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20030411190555.J3595@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20030410051257.D296537B408@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20030410.122906.62350043.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
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
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:12:55 -0000

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