"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst(a)redhat.com> writes:
We need to know the original path since unparenting loses this
state.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst(a)redhat.com>
---
hw/qdev.c | 4 ++--
include/qom/object.h | 3 ++-
qom/object.c | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/qdev.c b/hw/qdev.c
index 741af96..64546cf 100644
--- a/hw/qdev.c
+++ b/hw/qdev.c
@@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static void qbus_realize(BusState *bus, DeviceState *parent, const
char *name)
}
}
-static void bus_unparent(Object *obj)
+static void bus_unparent(Object *obj, const char *path)
{
BusState *bus = BUS(obj);
BusChild *kid;
@@ -756,7 +756,7 @@ static void device_class_base_init(ObjectClass *class, void *data)
klass->props = NULL;
}
-static void device_unparent(Object *obj)
+static void device_unparent(Object *obj, const char *path)
{
DeviceState *dev = DEVICE(obj);
DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(dev);
diff --git a/include/qom/object.h b/include/qom/object.h
index cf094e7..f0790d4 100644
--- a/include/qom/object.h
+++ b/include/qom/object.h
@@ -330,11 +330,12 @@ typedef struct ObjectProperty
/**
* ObjectUnparent:
* @obj: the object that is being removed from the composition tree
+ * @path: canonical path that object had if any
*
* Called when an object is being removed from the QOM composition tree.
* The function should remove any backlinks from children objects to @obj.
*/
-typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj);
+typedef void (ObjectUnparent)(Object *obj, const char *path);
/**
* ObjectFree:
diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c
index 3d638ff..21c9da4 100644
--- a/qom/object.c
+++ b/qom/object.c
@@ -362,14 +362,16 @@ static void object_property_del_child(Object *obj, Object *child,
Error **errp)
void object_unparent(Object *obj)
{
+ gchar *path = object_get_canonical_path(obj);
object_ref(obj);
if (obj->parent) {
object_property_del_child(obj->parent, obj, NULL);
}
if (obj->class->unparent) {
- (obj->class->unparent)(obj);
+ (obj->class->unparent)(obj, path);
}
I think you should actually just move this call above
if (obj->parent) { object_parent_del_child(...); }.
There's no harm AFAICT in doing this and it seems more logical to me to
have destruction flow start with the subclass and move up to the base
class.
This avoids needing a hack like this because the object is still in a
reasonable state when unparent is called.
Paolo, do you see anything wrong with this? I looked at the commit you
added this in and it doesn't look like it would be a problem.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
object_unref(obj);
+ g_free(path);
}
static void object_deinit(Object *obj, TypeImpl *type)
--
MST