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

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>]

On 8/24/21 10:35 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 8/24/21 10:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> 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.

Having used 'abort' in the subject, no clue why I used &error_fatal
then...