On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:22 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 16:48, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Returns 1 for signals that cause core files.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stacey Son <sson@FreeBSD.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
> > ---
> >  bsd-user/signal.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/bsd-user/signal.c b/bsd-user/signal.c
> > index a6e07277fb2..824535be8b8 100644
> > --- a/bsd-user/signal.c
> > +++ b/bsd-user/signal.c
> > @@ -92,6 +92,23 @@ static inline void
> host_to_target_siginfo_noswap(target_siginfo_t *tinfo,
> >      }
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Returns 1 if given signal should dump core if not handled. */
> > +static int core_dump_signal(int sig)
> > +{
> > +    switch (sig) {
> > +    case TARGET_SIGABRT:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGFPE:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGILL:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGQUIT:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGSEGV:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGTRAP:
> > +    case TARGET_SIGBUS:
> > +        return 1;
> > +    default:
> > +        return 0;
> > +    }
> > +}
>
> Code is fine, but since this is a static function with no callers
> the compiler is going to emit a warning about that. It's a small
> function, so the easiest thing is just to squash this into the
> following patch which is what adds the code that calls it.
>

Sure thing. I'm still trying to get a feel for right-sizing the chunking...
Since the warning didn't fail the compile, I thought it would be OK,
but can easily fold this in with the first patch to use it.

Warner