On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Juergen Gross wrote: > 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.
Thanks Juergen for testing. I'll commit shortly.
