Hi, On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:27:57PM +0200, Jakub Janku wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:10 AM Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Avoid linearizing if the message isn't written out anyway > > > > "linearizing" ? What do you mean about that? > > Looking at definitions it seems not correct to me. > > I was simply referring to the spice_marshaller_linearize() call. > > > > > (spice_channel_flush_wire checks() this condition as well). > > > > > > This also silences the following error: > > > > > > (spicy:32087): GSpice-CRITICAL **: 16:22:03.147: > > > spice_session_get_read_only: assertion 'SPICE_IS_SESSION(self)' failed > > > > > > that can be seen if the channel gets disconnected > > > by the session while having non-empty write queue. > > > > > > spice_session_channel_destroy() sets channel->priv->session to NULL, > > > but spice_channel_write_msg() subsequently attempts to call > > > spice_session_get_read_only() with NULL pointer. Right, after spice_channel_disconnect() we shouldn't try to read/write anymore indeed. As spice_session_channel_destroy() sets c->has_error = TRUE, I think this match is almost fine. > > Minor: this is the explanation why the error on the previous > > paragraph should not be treated like an error, I think it should > > be the same paragraphs. > > Makes sense. > > > > OT: maybe channel session should never be NULL? > > It indeed does seem weird that > g_clear_object(&channel->priv->session); is called when the > "spice-session" property of the channel is G_PARAM_CONSTRUCT_ONLY -- > with this flag, I would expect the property to not change after the > construction. If I'm not reading it wrong, this only happens on spice_channel_dispose() which means we shouldn't be relying on this object at this point. > Spice session waits for the channel destruction anyway > (channel_finally_destroyed callback), so it should be imho fine that > the channel holds a reference to the session while it is being > destroyed. So I think we could remove that > g_clear_object(&channel->priv->session); call in > spice_session_channel_destroy(). Maybe moving to spice_channel_finalize() would already be enough if you really need to postpone this but I don't see why allow using priv->session while we are disposing the resources of the channel already. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Janků <jjanku@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > src/spice-channel.c | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/spice-channel.c b/src/spice-channel.c > > > index 61de177..aa80edf 100644 > > > --- a/src/spice-channel.c > > > +++ b/src/spice-channel.c > > > @@ -897,6 +897,11 @@ static void spice_channel_write_msg(SpiceChannel > > > *channel, SpiceMsgOut *out) > > > g_return_if_fail(out != NULL); > > > g_return_if_fail(channel == out->channel); > > > > > > + if (channel->priv->has_error) { > > > + spice_msg_out_unref(out); > > > + return; > > > + } I'm thinking that it might actually be a programming error that we are calling _write_msg() after channel_disconnect is called, so a warning might be welcomed? Not sure of a different fix; how easy is to reproduce this? Cheers, Victor > > > + > > > if (out->ro_check && > > > spice_channel_get_read_only(channel)) { > > > g_warning("Try to send message while read-only. Please report a > > > bug."); > > > > Frediano > _______________________________________________ > Spice-devel mailing list > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel