On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 01:35:49PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <[email protected]> > > > > Returning an error to kvm_init() is fatal anyway, no need to continue > > the initialization. > > > > Leave the `ret` variable in the function scope because it will be reused > > when adding RME support. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]> > > --- > > target/arm/kvm.c | 9 +++++---- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c > > index d40a6a985914..ed99be7fd80c 100644 > > --- a/target/arm/kvm.c > > +++ b/target/arm/kvm.c > > @@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ int kvm_arch_get_default_type(MachineState *ms) > > > > int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s) > > { > > - int ret = 0; > > + int ret; > > /* For ARM interrupt delivery is always asynchronous, > > * whether we are using an in-kernel VGIC or not. > > */ > > @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s) > > !kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ARM_IRQ_LINE_LAYOUT_2)) { > > error_report("Using more than 256 vcpus requires a host kernel " > > "with KVM_CAP_ARM_IRQ_LINE_LAYOUT_2"); > > - ret = -EINVAL; > > + return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > if (kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER)) { > > There's a error_report("Failed to enable KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER cap") > under here as well that doesn't have a return -EINVAL after this patch. > Is that intentional?
This patch did not touch the clause that checks KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER. As far as I can tell, it is mainline code.
