On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:45:57AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:30:51 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > +
> > > + object_unparent(obj1);
> > > + object_unparent(obj2a);
> > > + object_unparent(obj2b);
> > Are above unparenting is necessary?
> >
> > > + object_unparent(cont1);
> > Wouldn't parent destruction sufficient to trigger
> > implicit destruction of children?
>
> Probably it is. I will test it.
The obj1 and obj2a object_unparent() calls are really
unnecessary. object_unparent(obj2b) is still necessary because
it is attached direcly to root.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
---
tests/check-qom-proplist.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/check-qom-proplist.c b/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
index 381532c..432b665 100644
--- a/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
+++ b/tests/check-qom-proplist.c
@@ -605,8 +605,6 @@ static void test_qom_partial_path(void)
g_assert(!ambiguous);
g_assert(object_resolve_path("obj1", NULL) == obj1);
- object_unparent(obj1);
- object_unparent(obj2a);
object_unparent(obj2b);
object_unparent(cont1);
}
--
2.9.4
--
Eduardo
