Hi,
On 5/12/19 10:36 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> A couple return -EINVAL's forget their '-'s.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com>
> ---
> target/arm/kvm64.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/kvm64.c b/target/arm/kvm64.c
> index e3ba1492482f..ba232b27a6d3 100644
> --- a/target/arm/kvm64.c
> +++ b/target/arm/kvm64.c
> @@ -841,7 +841,7 @@ int kvm_arch_put_registers(CPUState *cs, int level)
> write_cpustate_to_list(cpu, true);
>
> if (!write_list_to_kvmstate(cpu, level)) {
> - return EINVAL;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> kvm_arm_sync_mpstate_to_kvm(cpu);
> @@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ int kvm_arch_get_registers(CPUState *cs)
> }
>
> if (!write_kvmstate_to_list(cpu)) {
> - return EINVAL;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
> /* Note that it's OK to have registers which aren't in CPUState,
> * so we can ignore a failure return here.
>
note, if I am not wrong, in existing call sites the returned value is
never tested actually.
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
Thanks
Eric
