On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 08:53 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote: > > } > > + case X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED: > > + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); > > + /* Fall-through */ > > Kind of surprised you need the fall-through if you assert the code is > unreachable... but analysis tools can be a bit temperamental so ok. > > > default: > > BUG(); > > } > > > > + ASSERT(rc != X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED); > > + > > Isn't this assertion redundant given the ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() above? > > > > Paul
The second ASSERT statement is used to make sure the return value of hvm_process_io_intercept or hvm_send_ioreq (called from the "case X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE:" branch of the switch statement above) cannot be X86EMUL_UNIMPLEMENTED. > hvm_process_io_intercept > > if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY ) > > return rc; > > > > //Petre ________________________ This email was scanned by Bitdefender _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel