Hi Derek,
On 13 April 2017 at 17:51, Derek Foreman <der...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> void
> -wl_closure_destroy(struct wl_closure *closure)
> +wl_closure_destroy(struct wl_closure *closure, bool dispatched)
> {
> + /* wl_closure_destroy has free() semantics */
> + if (!closure)
> + return;
> + /* If message is NULL then this closure failed during
> + * creation, and any fd cleanup has been done by the
> + * caller
> + */
> + if (!dispatched && closure->message)
> + wl_closure_close_fds(closure);
> free(closure);
> }
Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but is there any reason to
not set closure->message unconditionally? If you moved the
closure->message assignment up inside marshal/demarshal, and ran
through initialising all the handle-type arg values to -1 (let's call
this hypothetical function wl_closure_init - take an 'extra' size
param to preserve the single-alloc demarshal semantics as well), then
you could just use this everywhere rather than manual fd counting.
Also, please use an enum rather than true/false: it was only after I
got to like four 'this seems completely backwards?' comments that I
realised true meant 'don't do the new behaviour', and false meant 'do
extra stuff'. I blame the flu medication, but still ...
Cheers,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
