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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
