Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Cool, Michael can you update your patch? Should simplify it quite a
bit.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> Paolo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list