From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW() Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:02:38 +0300 Message-ID: <4E2D3F3E.70303@redhat.com> References: <1311583872-362-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D3CC2.7000206@redhat.com> <0AF62DBC-C10D-4C06-9FE3-CCE8AF912462@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Graf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0AF62DBC-C10D-4C06-9FE3-CCE8AF912462@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2011 12:56 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > That argument can be used to block any change. You'll get used to it in time. The question is, is the new interface better or not. > > I agree that it keeps you from accidently malloc'ing a struct of pointer size. But couldn't we also just add this to checkpatch.pl? Better APIs trump better patch review. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function