On 8/24/21 10:13 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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.
OK, thanks!
