On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 02:12:55PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 09:11:51AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > > Rather than passing the object to be removed by reference, pass by value > > > and then let the caller decide whether or not the object should be free'd. > > > This function should just handle the remove of the object from the list > > > for which it was placed during virNodeDeviceObjAssignDef. > > > > > > One caller in node_device_hal would fail to go through the dev_create path > > > since the @dev would have been NULL after returning from the Remove API. > > > > This is the main motivation for the patch I presume - in which case, I'm > > wondering why do we actually have to remove the device from the list when > > handling 'change'/'update' for hal instead of just replacing the ->def with a > > new instance but it's perfectly fine to do that for udev...I don't see the > > point in doing what we currently do for hal. > > It will basically be a historical artifact since few people have touched the > HAL driver in years. We only keep it around for compat with FreeBSD IIRC. > It is perfectly reasonable to update the code to follow our modern best > practice. Thank you for explanation. Erik -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
