On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 01:07:44PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:54:00PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 09:16:59AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 01:06:29PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > It will be used in multiple threads in follow-up patches. Let it start > > > > to have refcounts. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > include/io/task.h | 3 +++ > > > > io/task.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/io/task.h b/include/io/task.h > > > > index 9dbe3758d7..c6acd6489c 100644 > > > > --- a/include/io/task.h > > > > +++ b/include/io/task.h > > > > @@ -322,4 +322,7 @@ gpointer qio_task_get_result_pointer(QIOTask *task); > > > > */ > > > > Object *qio_task_get_source(QIOTask *task); > > > > > > > > +void qio_task_ref(QIOTask *task); > > > > +void qio_task_unref(QIOTask *task); > > > > > > It should just be turned back into a QObject as it was originally, > > > so we get refcounting for free. > > > > Could you point me the commit that has the original code? I would be > > glad to revert to that, or yeah I can switch to QObject too. Thanks, > > It was never actually committed - it was just that way during initial > review but was suggested to be simplified as ref counting wasn't needed. > > That all said, having now seen the later parts of this patch series, I > don't think we would need todo this at all, because we should not be > exposing the GTask to callers and thus the refcounting question goes away
Indeed. I suppose that means you like my proposal in the other thread. But I'll wait for your explicit acknowledgement in that too. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
