From: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>

A couple return -EINVAL's forgot their '-'s.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
 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 3d91846beb8..ddde6268b9d 100644
--- a/target/arm/kvm64.c
+++ b/target/arm/kvm64.c
@@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ 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);
@@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ 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.
-- 
2.20.1