From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40765)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1Rb7k6-0008QU-PL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:36:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1Rb7k1-0003bm-7l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:36:46 -0500
Received: from mail-ee0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:37988)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@gmail.com>) id 1Rb7k1-0003bc-2D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 04:36:41 -0500
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so2002228eek.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:36:37 +0000
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20111215093637.GA387@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain>
References: <4EE9AB5A.4080306@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20111215082828.GA33201@cs.nctu.edu.tw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20111215082828.GA33201@cs.nctu.edu.tw>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] some questions about g_malloc in qemu
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: =?utf-8?B?6Zmz6Z+L5Lu7?= <chenwj@iis.sinica.edu.tw>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Zhi Hui Li <zhihuili@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, zhihuili@cn.ibm.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, QEMU-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:28:28PM +0800, 陳韋任 wrote:
>  I found this in HACKING:
> 
>   Please note that NULL check for the g_malloc result is redundant and
>   that g_malloc() call with zero size is not allowed.

So we have:

1. You should not request 0 bytes from g_malloc().
2. g_malloc() does not return NULL (if you follow rule #1).

There is no need to check for NULL return.

Stefan