Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 12/07/2009 06:20 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Covering every qemu_malloc instance this close to the GA is too 
>>> risky.  I agree that having separate behavior is less than ideal but 
>>> I think it's the only sane way forward.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand why.  What's so insane about Markus' patch?  
>> Allowing size=0 for both developer and production builds?
>
> There is a bug here.  Callers are calling qemu_malloc incorrectly.
>
> There is an open discussion about how to address it--fix all callers 
> of qemu_malloc() or allow size=0.  Since there isn't agreement, a 
> compromise of sticking to the current behavior for the development 
> tree, and using the later for production since we can't guarantee the 
> former seems reasonable.

If we apply the patch, the callers are no longer incorrect.  Since we're 
winding down development on that tree, I see no reason for the 
production build to be correct and the development tree to be incorrect.

>> It seems like the least risky, least change approach to me.  Exactly 
>> what we want for 0.12.
>
> The risk is that everyone will agree to this approach in the next two 
> weeks.  I'm fairly certain no amount of discussion on qemu-devel is 
> going to lead to that.

You've already agreed to it for the production build.  There's no gain 
in having separate behaviour for development and production, when a tree 
is headed towards production.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function