From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51244)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WL84L-0004Zf-2S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:25:00 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WL84D-0000On-JD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:24:52 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46598 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WL84D-0000OW-Dp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:24:45 -0500
Message-ID: <5316ED59.8010400@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 10:24:41 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1393969512-9468-1-git-send-email-stefanha@redhat.com>
	<5316DCD3.3000306@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5316DCD3.3000306@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] qom: link property fixes
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>

Am 05.03.2014 09:14, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 04/03/2014 22:45, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
>> There are two problems with QOM link properties:
>>
>> 1. There are refcount leaks in many object_property_add_link() callers=
.
>> 2. There is no way to prevent link properties from being set after a
>> device is
>>    realized.
>>
>> This patch series fixes these issues by extending the
>> object_property_add_link() function.
>=20
> Thanks for looking into this!  Just two (mostly) cosmetic comments:
>=20
> 1) in patch 2 we could use a flags argument instead of a "bool".  This
> is more easily extensible and self-documenting.

I wonder if we can do this more cleverly: The two ways a link<> property
can get set that I can think of are either a) assigning the field a new
value in C code or b) using object_property_set_link() with a textual
path. Can't the latter simply save an unref flag within the property's
opaque when used?

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg