Il 18/03/2013 15:24, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> "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.
Yes, seems okay. Especially if you think of object_property_del_child
as the base class's implementation of unparent.
Paolo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list