* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) 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 / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
