On 22.11.2021 14:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 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
Okay, thanks. That was with -O2 only, but adding -Wall didn't surface anything
either.
Jan
