On 19 September 2012 17:41, Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de> wrote:
> hw/pflash_cfi01.c:209:
> check_return: Calling function "bdrv_write" without checking return value (as
> is done elsewhere 35 out of 37 times).
>
> hw/pflash_cfi02.c:144:
> unterminated_default: The default case is not terminated by a 'break'
> statement.
>
> hw/pflash_cfi02.c:238:
> check_return: Calling function "bdrv_write" without checking return value (as
> is done elsewhere 35 out of 37 times).
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de>
> ---
> hw/pflash_cfi01.c | 6 ++++--
> hw/pflash_cfi02.c | 7 +++++--
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pflash_cfi01.c b/hw/pflash_cfi01.c
> index 56ed33f..27ae4aa 100644
> --- a/hw/pflash_cfi01.c
> +++ b/hw/pflash_cfi01.c
> @@ -205,8 +205,10 @@ static void pflash_update(pflash_t *pfl, int offset,
> /* round to sectors */
> offset = offset >> 9;
> offset_end = (offset_end + 511) >> 9;
> - bdrv_write(pfl->bs, offset, pfl->storage + (offset << 9),
> - offset_end - offset);
> + if (bdrv_write(pfl->bs, offset, pfl->storage + (offset << 9),
> + offset_end - offset) == -1) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "pflash: Error writing to flash storage\n");
> + }
...shouldn't we be propagating the write error up to the guest?
It feels like this change is just silencing the coverity error
without actually fixing the underlying problem.
-- PMM
