From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 14 14:15:05 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A91037B404
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C1D543F93
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 14 May 2003 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from iedowse@maths.tcd.ie)
Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP
          id <aa09295@salmon>; 14 May 2003 22:15:02 +0100 (BST)
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 14 May 2003 21:02:13 +0200."
             <58988.1052938933@critter.freebsd.dk> 
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:15:02 +0100
From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <200305142215.aa09295@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Missing break in switch in nfsserver code ? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:15:05 -0000

In message <58988.1052938933@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>
>FlexeLint warned me that there was a switch fall-through here.
>Can anybody say if this is intentional, or if a break is missing ?

Definitely intentional although that code is confusing. When a reply
comes from the server cache, the reply is sent to the client by the
RC_REPLY case. If the cache doesn't supply a reply, the operation
is performed by the RC_DOIT section, but the reply from the real
operation still needs to be sent so the code falls through to the
RC_REPLY case.

>If it is intentional, we should make it with "/* fall through */"

Good idea.

Ian