qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 02/15] migration: extend VMStateInfo


From: Dr. David Alan Gilbert
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 02/15] migration: extend VMStateInfo
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:00:53 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)

* Fam Zheng (address@hidden) wrote:
> On Tue, 01/24 18:47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> > diff --git a/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c b/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c
> > index c313166..da8e4df 100644
> > --- a/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c
> > +++ b/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c
> > @@ -286,7 +286,8 @@ static void 
> > kvm_s390_release_adapter_routes(S390FLICState *fs,
> >   * increase until buffer is sufficient or maxium size is
> >   * reached
> >   */
> > -static void kvm_flic_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, size_t size)
> > +static int kvm_flic_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, size_t size,
> > +                         VMStateField *field, QJSON *vmdesc)
> >  {
> >      KVMS390FLICState *flic = opaque;
> >      int len = FLIC_SAVE_INITIAL_SIZE;
> > @@ -319,6 +320,8 @@ static void kvm_flic_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, 
> > size_t size)
> >                          count * sizeof(struct kvm_s390_irq));
> >      }
> >      g_free(buf);
> > +
> > +    return 0;
> >  }
> 
> This hunk left one 'return' behind in the function, which should have been
> changed to 'return 0' as well, and now the compiler is not happy:
> 
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-itftfkl9/src/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c: In function 
> ‘kvm_flic_save’:
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-itftfkl9/src/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c:306:9: 
> error: ‘return’ with no value, in function returning non-void [-Werror]
>          return;
>          ^~~~~~
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-itftfkl9/src/hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c:289:12: 
> note: declared here
>  static int kvm_flic_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, size_t size,
>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors

OK, so it looks like that's a failure path, adding a return -ENOMEM would seem 
to make
sense there.

Do you have a way of build testing that on x86, or can it only be build
tested on s390?
(My build test included an s390x-softmmu build on x86-64).

Dave
> Fam
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]