On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 06:40:46PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:22 AM +0200, Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 06:25 PM +0200, "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:16:54PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > […snip…] > > >> > >> If the application wants to access 'opaque' outside the context of the > >> callback function, it must take steps to ensure it is still alive in > >> whatever thread it using it. This implies the data passed for 'opaque' > >> should be ref-counted and they must hold a reference for their own > >> usage, separately from the reference assoicated with the callback that > >> will be released by @freecb. > >> > >> That all said, we could take a slightly different approach if we want > >> to be paranoid about this > >> > >> eg move the > >> > >> virConnectCloseCallbackDataPtr closeCallback; > >> > >> out of the driver specific private structs, and put it in the main > >> struct _virConnect instead. > > > > This sound like a revert of commit “close callback: move it to driver” > > (88f09b75eb99415c). Shall we really do this? > > Polite ping. It is mostly a revert i think Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
