Re: [PATCH 11/16] nvme: factor out block backend setup

[Klaus Birkelund Jensen]

On Apr 15 13:02, Klaus Birkelund Jensen wrote:
> On Apr 15 12:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 4/15/20 12:24 PM, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > From: Klaus Jensen <address@hidden>
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Klaus Jensen <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >   hw/block/nvme.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> > >   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/hw/block/nvme.c b/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > index e67f578fbf79..f0989cbb4335 100644
> > > --- a/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > +++ b/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > @@ -1348,6 +1348,17 @@ static void nvme_init_state(NvmeCtrl *n)
> > >       n->cq = g_new0(NvmeCQueue *, n->params.max_ioqpairs + 1);
> > >   }
> > > +static int nvme_init_blk(NvmeCtrl *n, Error **errp)
> > > +{
> > > +    blkconf_blocksizes(&n->conf);
> > > +    if (!blkconf_apply_backend_options(&n->conf, 
> > > blk_is_read_only(n->conf.blk),
> > > +                                       false, errp)) {
> > > +        return -1;
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > > +    return 0;
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is a correct usage of the 'propagating errors' API (see
> > CODING_STYLE.rst and include/qapi/error.h), I'd expect this function to
> > return void, and use a local_error & error_propagate() in nvme_realize().
> > 
> > However this works, so:
> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> > 
> 
> So, I get that and did use the propagate functionality earlier. But I
> still used the int return. I'm not sure about the style if returning
> void - should I check if errp is now non-NULL? Point is that I need to
> return early since the later calls could fail if previous calls did not
> complete successfully.

Nevermind, I got it. I've changed it to propagate it correctly.