On Mon, 2016-12-26 at 00:49 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 17:37:43 -0800
> Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > +static int __identify_insn(struct insn *insn)
> > +{
> > + /* by getting modrm we also get the opcode */
> > + insn_get_modrm(insn);
> > + if (insn->opcode.bytes[0] != 0xf)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (insn->opcode.bytes[1] == 0x1) {
> > + switch (X86_MODRM_REG(insn->modrm.value)) {
> > + case 0:
> > + return UMIP_SGDT;
> > + case 1:
> > + return UMIP_SIDT;
> > + case 4:
> > + return UMIP_SMSW;
> > + default:
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + } else if (insn->opcode.bytes[1] == 0x0) {
> > + if (X86_MODRM_REG(insn->modrm.value) == 0)
> > + return UMIP_SLDT;
> > + else if (X86_MODRM_REG(insn->modrm.value) == 1)
> > + return UMIP_STR;
> > + else
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> gcc detected an error here, you may need return "-EINVAL".
I will make this change. I removed this EINVAL at the last minute as it
didn't look right. It was indeed right.
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
