Re: [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW()

Markus Armbruster
2011-07-25T10:59:18Z

Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> writes:

> 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).

Byte array: add the obvious type-safe allocator for a variable-sized
array T[N], then use it with unsigned char for T.

In fact, I find QEMU_NEW() pretty pointless without a buddy for arrays.

Still not covered: allocating a struct with a variable-size array as
final member. I guess a solution for that can be found if we care
enough. …