On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 08:55 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
> [...]
> > +
> > +static vboxDriverPtr
> > +vboxGetDriverConnection(void)
> > +{
> > + virMutexLock(&vbox_driver_lock);
> > +
> > + if (vbox_driver) {
> > + virObjectRef(vbox_driver);
> > + } else {
> > + vbox_driver = vboxDriverObjNew();
> > +
> > + if (!vbox_driver) {
> > + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> > + _("Failed to create vbox driver
> > object."));
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (vboxSdkInitialize() < 0 || vboxExtractVersion() < 0) {
>
> In this path should vboxSdkUninitialize be called (since it wouldn't
> be
> called in the destroy path)?
If vboxSdkUnintialize fails, VBoxSVC is not started so it does not need
to be unintialized - which is in line with the sample code included SDK
where it returns with EXIT_FAILUE in main if pfnClientInifialize fails.
However, if vboxExtractVersion fails (unlikely) we might want to call
gVBoxAPI.UPFN.Unintialize(vbox_driver) directly (not via
vboxSdkUninitialize as it checks connectionCount > 0 which on failure
would be 0). I've just tested both cases with gVBoxAPI.UPFN.Unintialize
in the failure path, and calling it does not do any harm in both cases,
so I guess it would be a good idea to put it there.
> I can make the adjustment before push, but figured I'd ask.
>
>
Regards,
Dawid
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
