On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:58:14AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 08:49:58AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > On 28/08/2015 14:53, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > I believe this makes sense no matter what we do about device IDs (see > > > thread "Should we auto-generate IDs?"). > > > > I haven't read that huge thread yet, but I think it gives the user too > > much power. There are internal objects that are not supposed to be > > freed, and freeing them would likely result in a SEGV or similar. > > I'll double check, but I thought it raised a nice error if the object > did not implement the user-creatable interface.
Ok, I'm wrong - we get an assertion error because it isn't user-creatble and then we abort. I'll send a v3 which returns a pretty error instead of aborting. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
