On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 01:37:34PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 03.11.2025 um 21:10 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > > The code had three similar repetitions of an iteration over one or all > > of nsiocs to set up a GSource, and likewise for teardown. Since an > > upcoming patch wants to tweak whether GSource or AioContext is used, > > its better to consolidate that into one helper function for fewer > > places to edit later. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <[email protected]> > > --- > > io/net-listener.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) > > > @@ -145,15 +174,11 @@ void > > qio_net_listener_set_client_func_full(QIONetListener *listener, > > GDestroyNotify notify, > > GMainContext *context) > > { > > - size_t i; > > - > > if (listener->io_func == func && listener->io_data == data) { > > return; > > } > > > > - if (listener->io_func) { > > - trace_qio_net_listener_watch_disabled(listener, "set_client_func"); > > - } > > + qio_net_listener_unwatch(listener, "set_client_func"); > > if (listener->io_notify) { > > listener->io_notify(listener->io_data); > > } > > This changes the order between the io_notify() call and the unwatch. Is > this intentional? If so, maybe mention it in the commit message and why > it's safe.
At least conceptually I think this ordering is better, and I don't think there should be any functional consequences from the change. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
