Re: [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH v7] slirp/misc: Use g_malloc() instead of malloc()

[zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>]

On 2014/8/18 19:32, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 18.08.2014 11:51, zhanghailiang пишет:
>> Here we don't check the return value of malloc() which may fail.
>> Use the g_malloc() instead, which will abort the program when
>> there is not enough memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang<zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée<alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   slirp/misc.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/slirp/misc.c b/slirp/misc.c
>> index b8eb74c..f7fe497 100644
>> --- a/slirp/misc.c
>> +++ b/slirp/misc.c
>> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ int add_exec(struct ex_list **ex_ptr, int do_pty, char *exec,
>>   	}
>>
>>   	tmp_ptr = *ex_ptr;
>> -	*ex_ptr = (struct ex_list *)malloc(sizeof(struct ex_list));
>> +	*ex_ptr = (struct ex_list *)g_malloc(sizeof(struct ex_list));
>
> There's a convinient macro in glib, g_new(typename, numelts).  Also
> there's a less commonly used g_renew() which is like realloc, but it
> is not applicable here.
>
Hmm, it is a good idea to use g_new instead of g_malloc,
we have to perform type cast for g_malloc.(BTW, i found in qemu there
are several places use g_malloc but not perform appropriate type
coercions)
I will modify this.Thanks :)

>>   	(*ex_ptr)->ex_fport = port;
>>   	(*ex_ptr)->ex_addr = addr;
>>   	(*ex_ptr)->ex_pty = do_pty;
>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ strdup(str)
>>   {
>>   	char *bptr;
>>
>> -	bptr = (char *)malloc(strlen(str)+1);
>> +	bptr = (char *)g_malloc(strlen(str)+1);
>>   	strcpy(bptr, str);
>>
>>   	return bptr;
>
> Oh.  And this one should be removed completely.  It is a reimplementation
> of strdup() for system which lacks it.  This code should go, we don't build

I couldn't agree more, i will removed it.

> on such a system anyway and we always have g_strdup().  There's one more
> usage of strdup() in this file, btw.
>

OK, Thanks.

> I'm sorry for being so picky, and you're already at v7, but heck.. We should
> be more active at reviewing patches :)
>

Aha! ;),i really appreciate your help. I learned a lot. Thanks.

> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
> .
>