-
-	if (priv_level == QLCNIC_NON_PRIV_FUNC) {
+	switch (priv_level) {
+	case QLCNIC_NON_PRIV_FUNC:
 		ahw->op_mode = QLCNIC_NON_PRIV_FUNC;
 		ahw->idc.state_entry = qlcnic_83xx_idc_ready_state_entry;
 		nic_ops->init_driver = qlcnic_83xx_init_non_privileged_vnic;
-	} else if (priv_level == QLCNIC_PRIV_FUNC) {
+		break;
+	case QLCNIC_PRIV_FUNC:
 		ahw->op_mode = QLCNIC_PRIV_FUNC;
 		ahw->idc.state_entry = qlcnic_83xx_idc_vnic_pf_entry;
 		nic_ops->init_driver = qlcnic_83xx_init_privileged_vnic;
-	} else if (priv_level == QLCNIC_MGMT_FUNC) {
+		break;
+	case QLCNIC_MGMT_FUNC:
 		ahw->op_mode = QLCNIC_MGMT_FUNC;
 		ahw->idc.state_entry = qlcnic_83xx_idc_ready_state_entry;
 		nic_ops->init_driver = qlcnic_83xx_init_mgmt_vnic;
-	} else {
+		break;
+	default:
+		dev_err(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Invalid Virtual NIC opmode\n");
 		return -EIO;
 	}

If the NON_PRIV case happens most of the time, then the old code would
have a single conditional branch that could easily be predicted correctly.
The switch statement version will either be a compare and an indirect jump
(a pipeline stall on a lot of cpus) or a compare-branch chain.

So this is necessarily an improvent!

	David