> 
> 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
> 

I posted a fixup to revert some behaviour

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

Reply via email to