On 17/04/2015 17:49, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > In this case I even think you're leaking the task. You do object_ref > > twice (once at creation time, once before qio_channel_add_watch_full) > > and only have one object_unref. I would just do without reference > > counting, and add a qio_task_free() function that calls > > qio_task_finalize() and frees the QIOTask. > > Are you referring to the qio_channel_tls_handshake() method in the > next patch ? If so it does actually have two object_unref calls > so shouldn't be leaking. In more complex scenarios I thnk the > ref counting ability will come in useful. Of course I could add > ref counting to a plain struct without using QOM, but it felt > better to just use QOM and be done with it, so people don't have > to remember which particular unref method they must use.
I cannot find the second... O:-) > > BTW, do you have plans to use the GDestroyNotify argument to > > qio_task_new, or is it just for consistency? > > I'm not 100% sure if I'll need it or not yet. One of my todo items > is to double check the sequence of operations when a VNC/chardev > client disconnects while a background task is in progress. It is > possible I might need to hold a reference on the VNC/chardev state > in which case the GDestroyNotify arg will come in useful. So I just > added it for consistency initially. Yup, no problem there. Paolo
