Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci: Abort if setting link property failed

[Markus Armbruster]

Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:

> +Markus
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 07:15:46PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Do not ignore eventual error if we failed at setting the 'host'
>> property of the TYPE_XHCI model.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci.c b/hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci.c
>> index e934b1a5b1f..71f6629ccde 100644
>> --- a/hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/usb/hcd-xhci-pci.c
>> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ static void usb_xhci_pci_realize(struct PCIDevice *dev, 
>> Error **errp)
>>      dev->config[PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE] = 0x10;
>>      dev->config[0x60] = 0x30; /* release number */
>>  
>> -    object_property_set_link(OBJECT(&s->xhci), "host", OBJECT(s), NULL);
>> +    object_property_set_link(OBJECT(&s->xhci), "host", OBJECT(s), 
>> &error_fatal);
>
> If this fails, it's due to programmer error, isn't?  Shouldn't we
> use &error_abort on that case?

I think so.

In functions with an Error **errp parameter, use of &error_fatal is
almost always wrong.

>>      s->xhci.intr_update = xhci_pci_intr_update;
>>      s->xhci.intr_raise = xhci_pci_intr_raise;
>>      if (!qdev_realize(DEVICE(&s->xhci), NULL, errp)) {
>> -- 
>> 2.31.1
>>