On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 09:41:57AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/21/2011 09:53 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote: > >> [1] http://libvirt.org/html/libvirt-libvirt.html#virConnectClose > >> > > > > In contrast to the documentation virConnectClose returns the remaining > > reference count of the connection after unref'ing it. This means > > virConnectClose returns -1 on error and returns 0 when there is no > > reference left and the connection is really closed. When it returns > > > 0 then the connection isn't closed yet, but is kept open because there > > are still objects alive that depend on it. For example when you open a > > connection and get a virDomainPtr from it then the refcount of the > > connection is increased, because the domain object depends on it. When > > the domain object is freed then the refcount of the connection is > > decreased again. > > > > All objects in libvirt like connections, domains, networks etc are > > reference counted. But in contrast to virConnectClose other free > > functions like virDomainFree don't return the remaining reference > > count, they really just return -1 or 0. So the question is: do we > > change virConnectClose to really just return -1 or 0, or do we update > > the documentation, because someone might depend on virConnectClose > > allowing to detect via its return value whether the connection was > > really closed or not. > > At this point, I worry that changing return values might break existing > code, so I would favor a documentation update, but I'd also like to hear > an opinion from DV or danpb. I think we shouldn't change the semantics. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list