On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 06:55 -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > 
> 
> I just realized that beside spice_assert replacement this test is
> different.
> Not seamless is the old "seamless && success" condition so this is
> equivalent

Oh, good catch.

> to 
> 
> g_warn_if_fail(!(seamless && success) || main_channel-
> >num_clients_mig_wait == 1);
> 
> which is
> 
> g_warn_if_fail(!seamless || !success || main_channel-
> >num_clients_mig_wait == 1);
> 
> we should probably pass seamless and success.
> 
> Perhaps would be more easier to define a new enum like
> 
> enum {
>     MIG_CONNECT_STANDARD,
>     MIG_CONNECT_SEAMLESS,
>     MIG_CONNECT_ERROR
> };
> 
> that group success and seamless.
> 
> Still convinced that changing spice_assert has nothing to do which
> this patch rationale.
> 

I'll leave the asserts for now.

Jonathon
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel

Reply via email to