In target/i386/hvf/hvf.c, a break statement was probably missing in `hvf_vcpu_exec()`, in handling EXIT_REASON_HLT.

These lines seemed to be equivalent to `kvm_handle_halt()`.

Signed-off-by: Chen Zhang <tgfbeta@me.com>
---
 target/i386/hvf/hvf.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
index 42f9447303..2751c8125c 100644
--- a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
+++ b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
@@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ int hvf_vcpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
                 !(idtvec_info & VMCS_IDT_VEC_VALID)) {
                 cpu->halted = 1;
                 ret = EXCP_HLT;
+                break;
             }
             ret = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
             break;
-- 
2.21.0

Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/087F1D9C-109D-41D1-BE2C-CE5D840C981B@me.com/



Hi,

This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
more information:

Type: series
Message-id: 087F1D9C-109D-41D1-BE2C-CE5D840C981B@me.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hvf: Add missing break statement

=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
git rev-parse base > /dev/null || exit 0
git config --local diff.renamelimit 0
git config --local diff.renames True
git config --local diff.algorithm histogram
./scripts/checkpatch.pl --mailback base..
=== TEST SCRIPT END ===

Updating 3c8cf5a9c21ff8782164d1def7f44bd888713384
From https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu
 * [new tag]               patchew/087F1D9C-109D-41D1-BE2C-CE5D840C981B@me.com -> patchew/087F1D9C-109D-41D1-BE2C-CE5D840C981B@me.com
 t [tag update]            patchew/20190420091016.213160-1-fengli@smartx.com -> patchew/20190420091016.213160-1-fengli@smartx.com
 t [tag update]            patchew/20190420161446.2274-1-liq3ea@163.com -> patchew/20190420161446.2274-1-liq3ea@163.com
 t [tag update]            patchew/20190420191425.7d1dab82@luklap -> patchew/20190420191425.7d1dab82@luklap
Switched to a new branch 'test'
96883b9f2b hvf: Add missing break statement

=== OUTPUT BEGIN ===
ERROR: Author email address is mangled by the mailing list
#2: 
Author: Chen Zhang via Qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked

Commit 96883b9f2b8e (hvf: Add missing break statement) has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
=== OUTPUT END ===

Test command exited with code: 1


The full log is available at
http://patchew.org/logs/087F1D9C-109D-41D1-BE2C-CE5D840C981B@me.com/testing.checkpatch/?type=message.
---
Email generated automatically by Patchew [https://patchew.org/].
Please send your feedback to patchew-devel@redhat.com

On 4/22/19 5:42 AM, Chen Zhang via Qemu-devel wrote:
> In target/i386/hvf/hvf.c, a break statement was probably missing in `hvf_vcpu_exec()`, in handling EXIT_REASON_HLT.
> 
> These lines seemed to be equivalent to `kvm_handle_halt()`.
> 

Fixes: c97d6d2cdf97

> Signed-off-by: Chen Zhang <tgfbeta@me.com>
> ---
>  target/i386/hvf/hvf.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
> index 42f9447303..2751c8125c 100644
> --- a/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
> +++ b/target/i386/hvf/hvf.c
> @@ -708,6 +708,7 @@ int hvf_vcpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
>                  !(idtvec_info & VMCS_IDT_VEC_VALID)) {
>                  cpu->halted = 1;
>                  ret = EXCP_HLT;
> +                break;

Oops... I'm surprised no compiler warned about this yet...

This probably mean:
- This code is not covered by Continuous Integration
- Upstream maintainers are not building this code
- Upstream is not running this code

Please tell me I'm wrong!

Meanwhile:
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>

>              }
>              ret = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
>              break;
> 

On 22/04/19 18:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Oops... I'm surprised no compiler warned about this yet...
> 
> This probably mean:
> - This code is not covered by Continuous Integration
> - Upstream maintainers are not building this code
> - Upstream is not running this code
> 
> Please tell me I'm wrong!

Indeed I am not building or running this code since it requires a Mac.
I am thinking of adding a Patchew builder on macincloud, but I haven't
done it yet.

However, it is unlikely to be signaled by a compiler---maybe by
Coverity.  Probably the return value doesn't mean much to the rest of
the code, the "cpu->halted = 1" is what counts.  I have queued the patch.

Paolo