Am 11.06.2014 12:19, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 27.05.2014 02:39, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite:
>>> Certain parts of the QOM framework test this pointer to determine if
>>> an object is parented. Nuke it when the object is unparented to allow
>>> for reuse of an object after unparenting.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> qom/object.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
>>> index e42b254..8319e89 100644
>>> --- a/qom/object.c
>>> +++ b/qom/object.c
>>> @@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ void object_unparent(Object *obj)
>>> if (obj->parent) {
>>> object_property_del_child(obj->parent, obj, NULL);
>>> }
>>> + obj->parent = NULL;
>>> object_unref(obj);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> This looks okay to me, and it might also help the segfault on hot-unplug
>> Stefan and Kevin reported before I went on travels.
>>
>
> Welcome back.
>
>> Any objection to moving this one line up into the if?
>>
>
> No problem. Will respin.
I've done so myself, but now I wonder why we are checking obj->parent at
all there after we already return if !obj->parent? Is this to guard
against ObjectClass::unparent() changing Object::parent? Either way, the
two variants you posted and I suggested should be fine.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
