On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, Like Xu wrote:
> On 22/2/2022 4:33 pm, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 2/22/22 07:25, Like Xu wrote:
> > > From: Like Xu <likexu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Fix the function address for __static_call_return0() which is used by
> > > static_call_update() when a func in struct kvm_x86_ops is NULL.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5be2226f417d ("KVM: x86: allow defining return-0 static calls")
> > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Sorry for the stupid question, but what breaks?
>
> Although they are numerically the same, I suppose we should use the
> & operator here, as in the other cases where __static_call_return0 is used.
Meh, IMO all the other instances are weird for adding the "&".
