On 11/12/2017 13:39, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> for (n = 0; n < (KVMPPC_BOOKE_IAC_NUM + KVMPPC_BOOKE_DAC_NUM); n++) {
>> uint64_t addr = dbg->arch.bp[n].addr;
>> uint32_t type = dbg->arch.bp[n].type;
>> @@ -2067,21 +2071,24 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> if (type & ~(KVMPPC_DEBUG_WATCH_READ |
>> KVMPPC_DEBUG_WATCH_WRITE |
>> KVMPPC_DEBUG_BREAKPOINT))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>>
>> if (type & KVMPPC_DEBUG_BREAKPOINT) {
>> /* Setting H/W breakpoint */
>> if (kvmppc_booke_add_breakpoint(dbg_reg, addr, b++))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>> } else {
>> /* Setting H/W watchpoint */
>> if (kvmppc_booke_add_watchpoint(dbg_reg, addr,
>> type, w++))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + goto out;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + ret = 0;
>
> I would probably set the -EINVAL in the individual branches (so it is
> clear that something is wrong, and it is not just a benign exit as in
> the cases above), but your code is correct as well. Let the powerpc
> folks decide.
The idiom that Christoffer used is found elsewhere in KVM, so I'm
accepting his version. Thanks for the review!
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
