On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 13:58:49 +0000,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 13:42, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-01-07 20:23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > On 1/7/22 7:01 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > >> @@ -1380,17 +1380,10 @@ void arm_cpu_finalize_features(ARMCPU *cpu,
> > >> Error **errp)
> > >> return;
> > >> }
> > >> - /*
> > >> - * KVM does not support modifications to this feature.
> > >> - * We have not registered the cpu properties when KVM
> > >> - * is in use, so the user will not be able to set them.
> > >> - */
> > >> - if (!kvm_enabled()) {
> > >> - arm_cpu_pauth_finalize(cpu, &local_err);
> > >> - if (local_err != NULL) {
> > >> + arm_cpu_pauth_finalize(cpu, &local_err);
> > >> + if (local_err != NULL) {
> > >> error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > >> return;
> > >> - }
> > >> }
> > >
> > > Indentation is still off -- error + return should be out-dented one
> > > level.
> > >
> >
> > Duh. Clearly, my brain can't spot these. Apologies for the extra noise.
> >
> > > Otherwise,
> > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks. I'll repost a version shortly, unless someone shouts.
>
> Don't worry about it -- I've applied this to target-arm.next and
> fixed the indent there.
Awesome, thanks Peter.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
