Some functions in qcow.c return u64, but are checked against < 0
because they want to check for the -1 error return value.
Do an explicit comparison against the casted -1 to express this
properly.
This was silently compiled out by gcc, but clang complained about it.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
---
disk/qcow.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/disk/qcow.c b/disk/qcow.c
index e26c419..64cf927 100644
--- a/disk/qcow.c
+++ b/disk/qcow.c
@@ -679,7 +679,7 @@ static struct qcow_refcount_block *qcow_grow_refcount_block(struct qcow *q,
}
new_block_offset = qcow_alloc_clusters(q, q->cluster_size, 0);
- if (new_block_offset < 0)
+ if (new_block_offset == (u64)-1)
return NULL;
rfb = new_refcount_block(q, new_block_offset);
@@ -848,7 +848,7 @@ again:
for (i = 0; i < clust_num; i++) {
clust_idx = q->free_clust_idx++;
clust_refcount = qcow_get_refcount(q, clust_idx);
- if (clust_refcount < 0)
+ if (clust_refcount == (u16)-1)
return -1;
else if (clust_refcount > 0)
goto again;
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @@ static int get_cluster_table(struct qcow *q, u64 offset,
l2t_new_offset = qcow_alloc_clusters(q,
l2t_size*sizeof(u64), 1);
- if (l2t_new_offset < 0)
+ if (l2t_new_offset != (u64)-1)
goto error;
l2t = new_cache_table(q, l2t_new_offset);
@@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ static ssize_t qcow_write_cluster(struct qcow *q, u64 offset,
clust_start &= QCOW2_OFFSET_MASK;
if (!(clust_flags & QCOW2_OFLAG_COPIED)) {
clust_new_start = qcow_alloc_clusters(q, q->cluster_size, 1);
- if (clust_new_start < 0) {
+ if (clust_new_start != (u64)-1) {
pr_warning("Cluster alloc error");
goto error;
}
--
2.3.5
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
