[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-13 Thread Marc-André Lureau
Move to a common place error reporting, after the coroutine exits. --- gtk/spice-channel-priv.h | 3 ++- gtk/spice-channel.c | 25 + 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/gtk/spice-channel-priv.h b/gtk/spice-channel-priv.h index bd7f490..d70

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-26 Thread Christophe Fergeau
Hey, I think the shortlog is a bit misleading, it's only some specific events which are reported this way. In particular, SPICE_CHANNEL_ERROR_LINK is still reported as before. Bit of context as to _why_ this change is needed would be nice. On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Marc-André Lure

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-26 Thread Marc-André Lureau
- Original Message - > Hey, > > I think the shortlog is a bit misleading, it's only some specific events > which are reported this way. In particular, SPICE_CHANNEL_ERROR_LINK is > still reported as before. > Bit of context as to _why_ this change is needed would be nice. > It's all re

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-26 Thread Marc-André Lureau
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > Is this hunk strictly needed ? The code flow when the error was emitted > before exiting was not different, and I expect the old code needed to go > through there before the coroutine exited ? c->event must be NONE: it should not attem

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-26 Thread Marc-André Lureau
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >> I think the shortlog is a bit misleading, it's only some specific events >> which are reported this way. In particular, SPICE_CHANNEL_ERROR_LINK is >> still reported as before. Right, I focused only on channel_coroutine, but I think ot

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-27 Thread Christophe Fergeau
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 06:39:59PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Christophe Fergeau > wrote: > > Is this hunk strictly needed ? The code flow when the error was emitted > > before exiting was not different, and I expect the old code needed to go > > through th

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-27 Thread Marc-André Lureau
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > My understanding was that before these changes, when > g_coroutine_signal_emit was used to emit an error, this part of the code > relied on c->state != SPICE_CHANNEL_STATE_RECONNECTING to avoid calling > channel_connect(). Is this assert

Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk 1/9] channel: delay event report to after coroutine exit

2015-01-27 Thread Christophe Fergeau
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:38:23PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Christophe Fergeau > wrote: > > My understanding was that before these changes, when > > g_coroutine_signal_emit was used to emit an error, this part of the code > > relied on c->state != SPICE_C