>>> On 24.03.16 at 12:49, <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 24 March 2016 11:29 >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/intercept.c >> @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ int hvm_process_io_intercept(const struc >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); >> /* fall through */ >> default: >> - rc = X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE; >> + rc = -1; /* != any X86EMUL_* value. */ > > Rather than the need for magic values, couldn't you just goto a domain_crash > label at the tail of the function? > Also, since domain_crash() isn't synchronous, I think you should replace the > -1 value with some valid X86EMUL_ value before returning from the function.
Good point, but I guess I'd rather move the domain_crash() right here and retain the X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE then. What do you think? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
