On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:00:53 +0000
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> * 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).
That's a kvm file, and building on non-s390 unfortunately will not
catch these.
