Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Message-ID: <049e4892-fae8-4a1d-a069-70b0bf5ee755@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:10:00 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/xsave: Remove 'return void' expression for 'void
 function'
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
References: <20231007064019.17472-1-likexu@tencent.com>
 <e4d6c6a5030f49f44febf99ba4c7040938c3c483.camel@redhat.com>
 <53d7caba-8b00-42ab-849a-d8c8d94aea37@gmail.com>
 <ZTklnN2I3gYjGxVv@google.com> <ZTm8dH1GQ3vQtQua@google.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZTm8dH1GQ3vQtQua@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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.