[09/11] pseries: Clean up error handling in xics_system_init()

Use the error handling infrastructure to pass an error out from
try_create_xics() instead of assuming &error_abort - the caller is in a
better position to decide on error handling policy.

Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
---
 hw/ppc/spapr.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

On 11/12/15 01:11, David Gibson wrote:
> Use the error handling infrastructure to pass an error out from
> try_create_xics() instead of assuming &error_abort - the caller is in a
> better position to decide on error handling policy.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
>  hw/ppc/spapr.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index 546d2f5..c376748 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static XICSState *try_create_xics(const char *type, int nr_servers,
>  }
>  
>  static XICSState *xics_system_init(MachineState *machine,
> -                                   int nr_servers, int nr_irqs)
> +                                   int nr_servers, int nr_irqs, Error **errp)
>  {
>      XICSState *icp = NULL;
>  
> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static XICSState *xics_system_init(MachineState *machine,
>      }
>  
>      if (!icp) {
> -        icp = try_create_xics(TYPE_XICS, nr_servers, nr_irqs, &error_abort);
> +        icp = try_create_xics(TYPE_XICS, nr_servers, nr_irqs, errp);
>      }
>  
>      return icp;
> @@ -1808,7 +1808,7 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine)
>      spapr->icp = xics_system_init(machine,
>                                    DIV_ROUND_UP(max_cpus * kvmppc_smt_threads(),
>                                                 smp_threads),
> -                                  XICS_IRQS);
> +                                  XICS_IRQS, &error_fatal);
>  
>      if (smc->dr_lmb_enabled) {
>          spapr_validate_node_memory(machine, &error_fatal);
> 

Could you maybe explain in the patch description why you changed the
behavior in case of errors from "error_abort" into "error_fatal" ?

 Thomas

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:08:59AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 11/12/15 01:11, David Gibson wrote:
> > Use the error handling infrastructure to pass an error out from
> > try_create_xics() instead of assuming &error_abort - the caller is in a
> > better position to decide on error handling policy.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > ---
> >  hw/ppc/spapr.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > index 546d2f5..c376748 100644
> > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static XICSState *try_create_xics(const char *type, int nr_servers,
> >  }
> >  
> >  static XICSState *xics_system_init(MachineState *machine,
> > -                                   int nr_servers, int nr_irqs)
> > +                                   int nr_servers, int nr_irqs, Error **errp)
> >  {
> >      XICSState *icp = NULL;
> >  
> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static XICSState *xics_system_init(MachineState *machine,
> >      }
> >  
> >      if (!icp) {
> > -        icp = try_create_xics(TYPE_XICS, nr_servers, nr_irqs, &error_abort);
> > +        icp = try_create_xics(TYPE_XICS, nr_servers, nr_irqs, errp);
> >      }
> >  
> >      return icp;
> > @@ -1808,7 +1808,7 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine)
> >      spapr->icp = xics_system_init(machine,
> >                                    DIV_ROUND_UP(max_cpus * kvmppc_smt_threads(),
> >                                                 smp_threads),
> > -                                  XICS_IRQS);
> > +                                  XICS_IRQS, &error_fatal);
> >  
> >      if (smc->dr_lmb_enabled) {
> >          spapr_validate_node_memory(machine, &error_fatal);
> > 
> 
> Could you maybe explain in the patch description why you changed the
> behavior in case of errors from "error_abort" into "error_fatal" ?

Ah, yes, meant to do that but forgot.