Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@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 <phi...@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
>>
