Am 27.06.2012 15:44, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 06/27/2012 08:14 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> This together with the semantics discussions we're having makes me think >> we should attack "QOM'ifying" qdev sooner than later. I.e., reviewing >> what naming, chaining, etc. we can already change to align the >> TYPE_DEVICE-derived types with the generic QOM infrastructure. > > We really ought to find all uses of qdev_init_nofail() or > qdev_try_init() (including the sysbus et al derivatives) and add > explicit qdev_free() calls in the error handling case such that we can > remove the qdev_free() calls that are done automatically in the init > function.
I strongly disagree: We should instead rip out qdev_free() and use object_delete(). "free" vs. "delete" is still a qdev'ism, no need to make things worse. No disagreement on adding explicit QOM-style calls. Regards, Andreas > > Destructing an object automagically in a virtual method is pretty darn > evil and really promotes these sort of problems. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
