From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53130) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctx0n-0000Aq-Tl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:54:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctx0m-0002AT-Od for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:54:45 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]:35545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ctx0m-00029x-HW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:54:44 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k6so102009761wre.2 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 06:54:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1490968309-13672-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> References: <1490968309-13672-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> From: Peter Maydell Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:54:22 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] main_loop: Make main_loop_wait() return void List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: QEMU Developers Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "patches@linaro.org" On 31 March 2017 at 14:51, Peter Maydell wrote: > In commit e330c118f2a5a the last usage of main_loop_wait() that cared > about the return value was changed to no longer use it. Drop the > now-useless return value and make the function return void. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell > --- > Coverity complains (CID 1372464) about main_loop() calling > main_loop_wait() and ignoring its return value. I suspect > this change will just displace that to within main_loop_wait() > itself since the underlying issue there is "the ppoll() that > gets called to poll fds can return an error code, but what > do we do if it does?". Suggestions on that point welcome. > > I guess this will make the compiler warn about ret being > set and never used if CONFIG_SLIRP is not defined, which > is irritating. I'm postponing messing about with fixing > that in favour of seeing whether anybody has a good answer > to the question above (which might make it moot). > --- ...oops, I meant to tag this RFC; never mind. thanks -- PMM