From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NoyZm-0005Xi-Te
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:18 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46603 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NoyZm-0005X6-3k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:18 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1NoyZl-00046d-Ej
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:17 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:5540)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1NoyZl-00046S-7n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:17 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1NoyZj-00005A-Gm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:30:15 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:30:08 +0000
References: <1267642874-15001-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<87vddcjhpv.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4B95AD93.1070502@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B95AD93.1070502@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201003091230.08628.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, jvrao <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>

> Is  there any reason (other than being coding style) in using qemu_free()
> instead of free()? As per qem-malloc.c qemu_free() is nothing but free().

The whole point of qemu_{malloc,free} is to isolate code from the system 
implementation of malloc/free. It's entirely possible that future versions of 
qemu_malloc will use a different memory allocation strategy.
 
> The reason I am asking is.. tracking string allocs become tricky
> if some of them were defined using qemu_alloc() and others are allocated
>  through sprintf().

sprintf does not allocate memory.
If you mean strdup, then you shouldn't be using that (use qemu_strdup).

Paul