On 8/24/21 10:35 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > 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.
Having used 'abort' in the subject, no clue why I used &error_fatal then...
