Hi Johan, On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Lizardo, > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012, Anderson Lizardo wrote: >> The "destroy" callback of g_dbus_add_disconnect_watch() is actually >> never called, therefore the watcher data should be freed on >> watcher_exit(). > > Wouldn't it make more sense to fix GDBus so that the destroy callback > *is* called than to work around it like this? No other g_dbus_add_disconnect_watch() callers (besides this and LE thermometer code which is also leaking and for which I have a patch as well) use destroy callback. To me it seemed it was a known fact that this parameter is not implemented in gdbus code, so that's why I went this route. If you prefer that I implement this destroy functionality, when do you think it should be called? Only when the watch is removed? Personally, I think it is better to simply remove this argument from g_dbus_add_disconnect_watch(), if that is allowed. The caller usually knows better when to "destroy" its own allocated resources (which may explain why most users did not try to use this parameter?). What do you think? Regards, -- Anderson Lizardo Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia - INdT Manaus - Brazil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
