[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/fm10k/base: add a break statement

[Chen, Jing D]

Hi, Chenghu,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chenghu Yao [mailto:yao.chenghu at zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: Chen, Jing D <jing.d.chen at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Chenghu Yao <yao.chenghu at zte.com.cn>
> Subject: [PATCH] net/fm10k/base: add a break statement
> 
> In function fm10k_mbx_create_reply(), the last case branch
> has no break statement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chenghu Yao <yao.chenghu at zte.com.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_mbx.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_mbx.c
> b/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_mbx.c
> index 2e70434..45d6ddb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_mbx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/fm10k/base/fm10k_mbx.c
> @@ -1084,6 +1084,7 @@ STATIC s32 fm10k_mbx_create_reply(struct fm10k_hw
> *hw,
>  	case FM10K_STATE_CLOSED:
>  		/* generate new header based on data */
>  		fm10k_mbx_create_disconnect_hdr(mbx);
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		break;
>  	}

Thanks for contributing code. But there are 2 problems here.

1. You are modifying base code under 'base' directory. It assumed READ ONLY because
    there is another Intel team are maintaining it.
2. Without your change, the code won't have any negative effect. Yes, I appreciate your
    change to make it stronger.

So, I'd to say 'NAC' for this patch.