[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/crash: Drop manual hooking of exception_table[]
- To: Andrew Cooper <amc96@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:51:51 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=xGEHzUyV9JyjwR6seaW3DR+9EKwH/I3dj3JRg7ulIEo=; b=ehcMhXvDG1d3nWKH0bcIOLNnGg8pXABTGQtayj7r0pK+hM01VH94VJF++DEtPwCuIvSYpLf/76dt0KkzO7cKoxrKFjI61sFE+DpSbPQ3m4up7QwA5lGf6di2CYxR+B6234ibAv593vxBHquxGBcfUpMmKQL1QvJc2Av3LtZizFnuRKp4rXKVpVbP9kmDd7nPxs9c/ZSvCUIYLefW/LEqH68nl59JohuKQrUZlg/D29CAGLbHb93HqUHhuj8Kn17wSi8qw93nNO3cDy5YRWRMdI/XFknVNEcxsh6Am81fHYBoOTtlrWwq1JO3csCNBYzuGrT1R1sEmOwgpRF8Yb4nVw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YBDCSfdN3rRLk4Kihh+hMNUr+mlBustG0xiepDmbxnm+X7qchZnXaQqKW6mu3+Cy33L0o8xhSL62xk+V8Mm5qk0hyn3N3Go8YTowkI5WJyMNVSgAFZF/mAF3XxO++5klhPEnuTxhySwIm2vFfixgR3M2F4MeRpck70WyoyQyh7Zw4DDEwBL/mz3MXYZ7r1vbeARnsVoV4wxCYfPy6eb+NbhHjKTC+XvEWP7waE8LN/tF9Ag6bggX+b71EyXDWiNof1Fh9lfANyWZVqS6e9HK+YWxhXjN5gK1TMDSs1JiUqE/2sciDkHfyNortkSQwuL4p3X1hzwmw7TmP/8GhD6zcw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 14:52:19 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
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
|
