On Mon, 15 May 2017 14:02:34 +0200 Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
> On 05/15/2017 01:39 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > While here we introduce a single error path to avoid code duplication.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org>
> > ---
> > hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > index 4389ef4c2aef..63d160f7e010 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > @@ -147,25 +147,25 @@ static void spapr_cpu_core_realize_child(Object
> > *child, Error **errp)
> > object_property_add_const_link(obj, "xics", OBJECT(spapr),
> > &error_abort);
> > object_property_set_bool(obj, true, "realized", &local_err);
> > if (local_err) {
> > - error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
>
> the error: statement below adds an object_unparent(). is that ok ?
>
Yes, this is the purpose of the patch actually.
The ICP object gets parented to the CPU a few lines above, so I guess we
should unparent in this error path as well.
Maybe I should rename the patch to "unparent ICP object when realization fails"
?
> C.
>
> > }
> >
> > object_property_set_bool(child, true, "realized", &local_err);
> > if (local_err) {
> > - object_unparent(obj);
> > - error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
> > }
> >
> > spapr_cpu_init(spapr, cpu, &local_err);
> > if (local_err) {
> > - object_unparent(obj);
> > - error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > - return;
> > + goto error;
> > }
> >
> > xics_cpu_setup(XICS_FABRIC(spapr), cpu, ICP(obj));
> > + return;
> > +
> > +error:
> > + object_unparent(obj);
> > + error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > }
> >
> > static void spapr_cpu_core_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
> >
>
pgpeRLCOV4XNH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
