On 22/11/2021 08:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 19.11.2021 19:21, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/crash.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/crash.c
>> @@ -36,10 +36,8 @@ static unsigned int crashing_cpu;
>> static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(bool, crash_save_done);
>>
>> /* This becomes the NMI handler for non-crashing CPUs, when Xen is
>> crashing. */
>> -static void noreturn do_nmi_crash(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
>> +static int noreturn do_nmi_crash(const struct cpu_user_regs *regs, int cpu)
>> {
>> - unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> -
>> stac();
>>
>> /* nmi_shootdown_cpus() should ensure that this assertion is correct. */
> Looks like this is the first instance of a noreturn function returning
> non-void.
> Are you sufficiently certain that (older) compilers won't complain about
> missing
> return statements (with a value)?
Yes. https://godbolt.org/z/8a1efoh39
~Andrew
