"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> hw/qdev.c | 4 ++--
> include/qom/object.h | 3 ++-
> qom/object.c | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/qdev.c b/hw/qdev.c
> index 741af96..64546cf 100644
> --- a/hw/qdev.c
> +++ b/hw/qdev.c
> @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static void qbus_realize(BusState *bus, DeviceState *parent, const char *name)
> }
> }
>
> -static void bus_unparent(Object *obj)
> +static void bus_unparent(Object *obj, const char *path)
> {
> BusState *bus = BUS(obj);
> BusChild *kid;
> @@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static void device_class_base_init(ObjectClass *class, void *data)
> klass->props = NULL;
> }
>
> -static void device_unparent(Object *obj)
> +static void device_unparent(Object *obj, const char *path)
> {
> DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(obj);
> DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(dev);
> diff --git a/include/qom/object.h b/include/qom/object.h
> index cf094e7..f0790d4 100644
> --- a/include/qom/object.h
> +++ b/include/qom/object.h
> @@ -330,11 +330,12 @@ typedef struct ObjectProperty
> /**
> * ObjectUnparent:
> * @obj: the object that is being removed from the composition tree
> + * @path: canonical path that object had if any
> *
> * Called when an object is being removed from the QOM composition tree.
> * The function should remove any backlinks from children objects to @obj.
> */
> -typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj);
> +typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj, const char *path);
>
> /**
> * ObjectFree:
> diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
> index 3d638ff..21c9da4 100644
> --- a/qom/object.c
> +++ b/qom/object.c
> @@ -362,14 +362,16 @@ static void object_property_del_child(Object *obj, Object *child, Error **errp)
>
> void object_unparent(Object *obj)
> {
> + gchar *path = object_get_canonical_path(obj);
> object_ref(obj);
> if (obj->parent) {
> object_property_del_child(obj->parent, obj, NULL);
> }
> if (obj->class->unparent) {
> - (obj->class->unparent)(obj);
> + (obj->class->unparent)(obj, path);
> }
I think you should actually just move this call above
if (obj->parent) { object_parent_del_child(...); }.
There's no harm AFAICT in doing this and it seems more logical to me to
have destruction flow start with the subclass and move up to the base
class.
This avoids needing a hack like this because the object is still in a
reasonable state when unparent is called.
Paolo, do you see anything wrong with this? I looked at the commit you
added this in and it doesn't look like it would be a problem.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> object_unref(obj);
> + g_free(path);
> }
>
> static void object_deinit(Object *obj, TypeImpl *type)
> --
> MST
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list