From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW() Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:09:52 +0300 Message-ID: <4E2D40F0.1070604@redhat.com> References: <1311583872-362-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D3CC2.7000206@redhat.com> <0AF62DBC-C10D-4C06-9FE3-CCE8AF912462@suse.de> <4E2D3F3E.70303@redhat.com> <060B54D0-566A-4749-BD7C-B3035C7E1792@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: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59142 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751074Ab1GYKKA (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:10:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <060B54D0-566A-4749-BD7C-B3035C7E1792@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/25/2011 01:04 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 25.07.2011, at 12:02, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > 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. > > Only if you enforce them. The only sensible thing for QEMU_NEW (despite the general rule of upper case macros, I'd actually prefer this one to be lower case though since it's so often used) would be to remove qemu_malloc, declare malloc() as unusable and convert all users of qemu_malloc() to qemu_new(). Some qemu_mallocs() will remain (allocating a byte array or something variable sized). I agree qemu_new() will be nicer, but that will have to wait until Blue is several light-days away from Earth. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function