Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes: > On 6/24/20 6:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Don't handle object_property_get_link() failure that can't happen >> unless the programmer screwed up, pass &error_abort. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> --- >> hw/arm/bcm2835_peripherals.c | 7 +------ >> hw/arm/bcm2836.c | 7 +------ >> hw/display/bcm2835_fb.c | 8 +------- >> hw/dma/bcm2835_dma.c | 9 +-------- >> hw/gpio/bcm2835_gpio.c | 15 ++------------- >> hw/intc/nios2_iic.c | 8 +------- >> hw/misc/bcm2835_mbox.c | 9 +-------- >> hw/misc/bcm2835_property.c | 17 ++--------------- >> hw/usb/hcd-dwc2.c | 9 +-------- >> 9 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/arm/bcm2835_peripherals.c b/hw/arm/bcm2835_peripherals.c >> index 8313410ffe..3c40bda91e 100644 >> --- a/hw/arm/bcm2835_peripherals.c >> +++ b/hw/arm/bcm2835_peripherals.c >> @@ -134,12 +134,7 @@ static void bcm2835_peripherals_realize(DeviceState >> *dev, Error **errp) >> uint64_t ram_size, vcram_size; >> int n; >> >> - obj = object_property_get_link(OBJECT(dev), "ram", &err); >> - if (obj == NULL) { >> - error_setg(errp, "%s: required ram link not found: %s", >> - __func__, error_get_pretty(err)); >> - return; >> - } >> + obj = object_property_get_link(OBJECT(dev), "ram", &error_abort); > [...] > > Should we now add an assert(errp) in object_property_get_link()? > Basically this would force forks to adapt their code when > rebasing.
Functions should not place additional restrictions @errp arguments without a compelling reason. What if you want genuinely don't need the error details when object_property_get_link() fails? Passing null is better than passing &err only to error_free(err). > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> Thanks!