[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 15:40:15 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Li kunyu <kunyu@...china.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
seanjc@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Function missing integer return value
On 5/5/22 15:37, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> This statement is not reachable, so the patch is adding unneeded dead
>> code only.
>
> Maybe some static checker isn't smart enough to figure this out.
The static checker really should be improved. This is a while(true),
not the halting problem. :)
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists