On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 06:55 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
>
> I just realized that beside spice_assert replacement this test is
> different.
> Not seamless is the old "seamless && success" condition so this is
> equivalent
Oh, good catch.
> to
>
> g_warn_if_fail(!(seamless && success) || main_channel-
> >num_clients_mig_wait == 1);
>
> which is
>
> g_warn_if_fail(!seamless || !success || main_channel-
> >num_clients_mig_wait == 1);
>
> we should probably pass seamless and success.
>
> Perhaps would be more easier to define a new enum like
>
> enum {
> MIG_CONNECT_STANDARD,
> MIG_CONNECT_SEAMLESS,
> MIG_CONNECT_ERROR
> };
>
> that group success and seamless.
>
> Still convinced that changing spice_assert has nothing to do which
> this patch rationale.
>
I'll leave the asserts for now.
Jonathon
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel