From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60399)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1ZgTxD-0004wm-GY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:38:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1ZgTx9-0004Q8-KO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:38:35 -0400
References: <1443121042-3409-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<1443121042-3409-7-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<56054E5E.3090005@redhat.com> <87y4fu1t3j.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<560590A6.3030408@redhat.com> <87io6vm08l.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<5608F704.10300@suse.de>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5608FC80.9090701@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:38:24 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5608F704.10300@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 6/7] qdev: Protect
 device-list-properties against broken devices
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: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=c3=a4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, ehabkost@redhat.com, Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@gmail.com>, stefanha@redhat.com, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>, Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com>, Li Guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>



On 28/09/2015 10:15, Andreas F=E4rber wrote:
> Am 28.09.2015 um 10:11 schrieb Markus Armbruster:
>> Hmm, does creating and destroying a macio object leave the memory regi=
on
>> behind?
>>
>> Paolo, is calling memory_region_init() in an instance_init() method
>> okay?
>>
>> If yes, where should they be destroyed, and how?
>=20
> The counterpart to .instance_init is .instance_finalize aka uninit.

memory_region_init adds the region as a child of the object, so it need
not be destroyed anywhere.

Lo and behold, it's even documented in docs/memory.txt: "Destruction of
a memory region happens automatically when the owner object dies".

Paolo