arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
The requested info will be stored in 'guest_xsave->region' referenced by
the incoming pointer "struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave", thus there is no need
to explicitly use return void expression for a void function "static void
kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(...)". The issue is caught with [-Wpedantic].
Fixes: 2d287ec65e79 ("x86/fpu: Allow caller to constrain xfeatures when copying to uabi buffer")
Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index fdb2b0e61c43..2571466a317f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -5503,8 +5503,8 @@ static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave)
{
- return kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
- sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
+ kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
+ sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
}
static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_set_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
base-commit: 86701e115030e020a052216baa942e8547e0b487
--
2.42.0
On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 14:40:19 +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> The requested info will be stored in 'guest_xsave->region' referenced by
> the incoming pointer "struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave", thus there is no need
> to explicitly use return void expression for a void function "static void
> kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(...)". The issue is caught with [-Wpedantic].
>
>
Applied to kvm-x86 fixes, thanks!
[1/1] KVM: x86/xsave: Remove 'return void' expression for 'void function'
https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/commit/ef8d89033c3f
--
https://github.com/kvm-x86/linux/tree/next
У сб, 2023-10-07 у 14:40 +0800, Like Xu пише:
> From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>
> The requested info will be stored in 'guest_xsave->region' referenced by
> the incoming pointer "struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave", thus there is no need
> to explicitly use return void expression for a void function "static void
> kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(...)". The issue is caught with [-Wpedantic].
>
> Fixes: 2d287ec65e79 ("x86/fpu: Allow caller to constrain xfeatures when copying to uabi buffer")
> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index fdb2b0e61c43..2571466a317f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -5503,8 +5503,8 @@ static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave)
> {
> - return kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
> - sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
> + kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
> + sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
> }
>
> static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_set_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
> base-commit: 86701e115030e020a052216baa942e8547e0b487
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Emm, did we miss this little fix ?
On 11/10/2023 12:12 am, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> У сб, 2023-10-07 у 14:40 +0800, Like Xu пише:
>> From: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>>
>> The requested info will be stored in 'guest_xsave->region' referenced by
>> the incoming pointer "struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave", thus there is no need
>> to explicitly use return void expression for a void function "static void
>> kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(...)". The issue is caught with [-Wpedantic].
>>
>> Fixes: 2d287ec65e79 ("x86/fpu: Allow caller to constrain xfeatures when copying to uabi buffer")
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index fdb2b0e61c43..2571466a317f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -5503,8 +5503,8 @@ static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> static void kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct kvm_xsave *guest_xsave)
>> {
>> - return kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
>> - sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
>> + kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave2(vcpu, (void *)guest_xsave->region,
>> + sizeof(guest_xsave->region));
>> }
>>
>> static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_set_xsave(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>
>> base-commit: 86701e115030e020a052216baa942e8547e0b487
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Like Xu wrote: > Emm, did we miss this little fix ? No, I have it earmarked, it's just not a priority because it doesn't truly fix anything. Though I suppose it probably makes to apply it for 6.8, waiting one more day to send PULL requests to Paolo isn't a problem.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Like Xu wrote: > > Emm, did we miss this little fix ? > > No, I have it earmarked, it's just not a priority because it doesn't truly fix > anything. Though I suppose it probably makes to apply it for 6.8, waiting one > more day to send PULL requests to Paolo isn't a problem. Heh, when I tried to apply this I got reminded of why I held it for later. I want to apply it to kvm-x86/misc, but that's based on ~6.6-rc2 (plus a few KVM patches), i.e. doesn't have the "buggy" commit. I don't want to rebase "misc", nor do I want to create a branch and PULL request for a single trivial commit. So for logistical reasons, I'm not going apply this right away, but I will make sure it gets into v6.7.
On 26/10/2023 9:10 am, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Like Xu wrote: >>> Emm, did we miss this little fix ? >> >> No, I have it earmarked, it's just not a priority because it doesn't truly fix >> anything. Though I suppose it probably makes to apply it for 6.8, waiting one >> more day to send PULL requests to Paolo isn't a problem. > > Heh, when I tried to apply this I got reminded of why I held it for later. I > want to apply it to kvm-x86/misc, but that's based on ~6.6-rc2 (plus a few KVM > patches), i.e. doesn't have the "buggy" commit. I don't want to rebase "misc", > nor do I want to create a branch and PULL request for a single trivial commit. > > So for logistical reasons, I'm not going apply this right away, but I will make > sure it gets into v6.7. Thanks, and a similar pattern occurs with these functions: 'write_register_operand' 'account_shadowed' 'unaccount_shadowed' 'mtrr_lookup_fixed_next' 'pre_svm_run' 'svm_vcpu_deliver_sipi_vector' Although the compiler will do the right thing, use 'return void' expression deliberately without grounds for exemption may annoy some CI pipelines. If you need more cleanup or a new version to cover all these cases above, just let me know.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, Like Xu wrote: > On 26/10/2023 9:10 am, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, Like Xu wrote: > > > > Emm, did we miss this little fix ? > > > > > > No, I have it earmarked, it's just not a priority because it doesn't truly fix > > > anything. Though I suppose it probably makes to apply it for 6.8, waiting one > > > more day to send PULL requests to Paolo isn't a problem. > > > > Heh, when I tried to apply this I got reminded of why I held it for later. I > > want to apply it to kvm-x86/misc, but that's based on ~6.6-rc2 (plus a few KVM > > patches), i.e. doesn't have the "buggy" commit. I don't want to rebase "misc", > > nor do I want to create a branch and PULL request for a single trivial commit. > > > > So for logistical reasons, I'm not going apply this right away, but I will make > > sure it gets into v6.7. > > Thanks, and a similar pattern occurs with these functions: > > 'write_register_operand' > 'account_shadowed' > 'unaccount_shadowed' > 'mtrr_lookup_fixed_next' > 'pre_svm_run' > 'svm_vcpu_deliver_sipi_vector' > > Although the compiler will do the right thing, use 'return void' expression > deliberately without grounds for exemption may annoy some CI pipelines. > > If you need more cleanup or a new version to cover all these cases above, > just let me know. I'd rather update the CI pipelines to turn off -Wpedantic. There is zero chance that -Wpedantic will ever get enabled for kernel builds, the kernel is deliberately not ISO C compliant. I have no objection to cleaning up kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_get_xsave() because it's an obvious goof and a recent change, but like checkpatch warnings, I don't want to go around "fixing" warnings unless they are actively problematic for humans.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.