On 01/02/17 21:20, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 1 February 2017 at 19:37, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> > wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> do you think this is acceptable? > > The set of operations here is basically what I suggested > in review of v1, so I think it is the right thing. > OTOH this is a bit of an odd corner of the QOM model > so it might be worth doing some testing to make sure > the reference counts are doing what you (I) expect and > that the object does get correctly freed both in the > error-handling path here and when the device is > unplugged via xen_pv_del_xendev().
I've used my_g_free() printing a log message when called instead of g_free() in a test. I could verify it has been called when the device was unplugged. This test covered xen_pv_del_xendev() and an error handling path. Juergen
