On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 06:06:44PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote: > It makes sense to have a through review, but my argument here is the > de-duplication of object_unparent() and the replacement of g_free() with > object_new() are logically distinct and should be split into distinct > patches. Each patch can independently have through review, be > applied/backported, or be reverted in case of regression.
We're discussing a change in the memory.rst on suggested way to use dynamic MRs, so I think we can do it in one shot rather than making it confusing. It's not a huge change even in one go. It's fine. You're right we can remove the object_unparent() first when it's always a no-op. We'll update the doc twice, though I assume it's fine. If you would, please consider sending this part as a separate series. The subject should be something like "remove unnecessary object_unparent() for dynamic MRs" or something like that. It has nothing to do with memleaks on this part. Please cover tests as much as possible and if we touch the doc we need to convert everything that uses dynamic MRs, including the missing ones in VFIO, and also the rest occurances. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
