On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Il 18/06/2014 09:57, Peter Crosthwaite ha scritto:
>
>> @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ qemu_irq qemu_allocate_irq(qemu_irq_handler handler,
>> void *opaque, int n)
>> {
>> struct IRQState *irq;
>>
>> - irq = g_new(struct IRQState, 1);
>> + irq = IRQ(object_new(TYPE_IRQ));
>> irq->handler = handler;
>> irq->opaque = opaque;
>> irq->n = n;
>> @@ -82,7 +87,7 @@ void qemu_free_irqs(qemu_irq *s, int n)
>>
>> void qemu_free_irq(qemu_irq irq)
>> {
>> - g_free(irq);
>> + object_unref(OBJECT(irq));
>> }
>>
>> static void qemu_notirq(void *opaque, int line, int level)
>
>
> If the next step is to add an "owner" like the one in MemoryRegion, and
> change occurrences of qemu_free_irq to object_unparent,
Sure, I guess its a tree wide much like the one for Memory API though.
Can we do it as follow up though and sneak this through for 2.1?
Regards,
Peter
> then
>
> Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>
> Paolo
>
