From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NplYv-0001ct-PZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:48:42 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55685 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NplYt-0001aZ-5z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:48:39 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1NplYs-00034G-Ml
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:48:38 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:39759)
	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 1NplYr-00033t-VD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:48:38 -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 1NplOd-0007Iu-3R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:38:03 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:37:53 +0000
References: <1267642874-15001-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<201003091230.08628.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4B96706F.9010901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B96706F.9010901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201003111637.53391.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>

> Paul Brook wrote:
> >> 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).
> 
> Thanks for correcting Paul.. I was talking about vasprintf() .. not really
>  the sprintf() In any case.. right way to do it may be adding a new
>  qemu_vasprintf() for and use it along with qemu_free() Right?

Something like that, yes.  Any use of [v]asprintf is incorrect.

Paul