Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/6] gtk: add virtual console support

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 02/25/2012 02:22 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Am 25.02.2012 20:49, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 02/25/2012 10:21 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>> Am 20.02.2012 00:45, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>> This enables VteTerminal to be used to render the text consoles. VteTerminal is
>>>> the same widget used by gnome-terminal which means it's VT100 emulation is as
>>>> good as they come.
>>>>
>>>> It's also screen reader accessible, supports copy/paste, proper scrolling and
>>>> most of the other features you would expect from a terminal widget.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> ui/gtk.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/ui/gtk.c b/ui/gtk.c
>>>> index 502705b..bf65a4f 100644
>>>> --- a/ui/gtk.c
>>>> +++ b/ui/gtk.c
>>> [...]
>>>> +static int gd_vc_handler(QemuOpts *opts, CharDriverState **chrp)
>>>> +{
>>>> + CharDriverState *chr;
>>>> +
>>>> + chr = g_malloc0(sizeof(*chr));
>>>
>>> Some time ago, there was a decision to prefer g_new / g_new0:
>>
>> I'm not sure where the book of decisions is kept, but I certainly don't agree.
>> a = malloc(sizeof(*a)) is an incredibly common pattern in QEMU.
>>
>> It would be silly to change this pattern without good cause.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
> there is no book of decisions for QEMU, but there is best practice.
> As far as I remember this topic was first discussed in this
> qemu-devel thread:
>
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2011-10/msg01988.html
>
> a = malloc(sizeof(*a)) is no longer a valid pattern for QEMU
> since you introduced glib-2.0. Those calls were converted
> to a = g_malloc(sizeof(*a)) which was reasonable for a simple
> automated code conversion.
>
> I also used the g_malloc pattern in my patch, but was convinced
> that glib-2.0 offers a better alternative using g_new.

I meant g_malloc of course.

If we want to have a "best practice", we should document it in CODING_STYLE. 
But I wouldn't agree with such a patch to coding style anyway.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stefan Weil
>
>