On 04.02.2016 18:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:40:20PM +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: >> remoteConnectUnregisterCloseCallback is not quite good. >> if it is given a callback function different from that >> was registered before then local part will fail silently. On >> the other hand we can not gracefully handle this fail >> as the remote part is already unregistered. > > We could sanity check the callback before unregistering the > remote part. Or you could do the local unregister first since > if the remote part then fails, it is harmless - we'll see the > close event frm the server still, but we won't dispatch it. I'd prefer sanity check. The second option makes reregistering impossible (however i doubt this is really a usecase). Will resend soon. > >> There are a lot of options to fix it. I think of totally >> removing the callback argument from unregistering. What's >> the use of it? > > We can't remove it since that would change ABI. > Yes, I forgot about this. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list