On 05/11/2014 02:43, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>
>> +default:
>> +WARN_ON(1);
>> +continue;
>
> 'continue' versus 'break'?
Yes, it avoids falling through to "vmcs12_write_any(&vmx->vcpu, field,
field_value)".
> Looks we're missing another place,
Right, thanks.
Pao
On 2014/11/5 9:43, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
On 2014/11/5 1:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Return a negative error code instead, and WARN() when we should be
covering
the entire 2-bit space of vmcs_field_type's return value. For increased
robustness, add a BUILD_BUG_ON checking the range of
vmcs_field_to_o
On 2014/11/5 1:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Return a negative error code instead, and WARN() when we should be covering
the entire 2-bit space of vmcs_field_type's return value. For increased
robustness, add a BUILD_BUG_ON checking the range of vmcs_field_to_offset.
Suggested-by: Tiejun Chen
Signe
Return a negative error code instead, and WARN() when we should be covering
the entire 2-bit space of vmcs_field_type's return value. For increased
robustness, add a BUILD_BUG_ON checking the range of vmcs_field_to_offset.
Suggested-by: Tiejun Chen
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
arch/x86/kvm
