On 11.07.2018 19:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/07/2018 08:50, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> Yuck. The real problem here is that we're still requiring the >>>> code that creates these QOM devices to manually set the parent >>>> in the first place. It's not surprising that we don't get it right >>>> (either parenting in the wrong place or not at all). I'd much >>>> rather see us fix that properly than keep papering over places >>>> where we get it wrong. >>> Sorry, I'm still not an expert in all this QOM stuff yet ... so what do >>> you exactly recommend to do instead? >> I'm not clear either, but I don't think that what we're >> currently doing can be right. > > Well, in theory it should work... I sent the expected flow in another email.
Something that just came to my mind: bcm2836_init() creates the TYPE_BCM2835_PERIPHERALS object with object_initialize(). This creates one reference to the object already. Then the object is linked to its parent with object_property_add_child(), which creates another reference to the object. But where are the two references correctly destroyed again? One is certainly destroyed by device_unparent later, but the initial one? Could it be that we are simply lacking one object_unref() after the object_property_add_child() here? Thomas
