From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45718)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VLs5b-0007vl-H8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:01:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VLs5U-0001KH-35
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:00:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35752)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VLs5T-0001K3-MF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:00:51 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8HA0orf018718
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:00:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:03:03 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20130917100303.GA18677@redhat.com>
References: <1378211609-16121-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1378211609-16121-24-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20130917092433.GD18186@redhat.com> <523827B4.9020602@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <523827B4.9020602@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/38] shpc: split shpc_free from
	shpc_cleanup
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:58:12AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/09/2013 11:24, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> @@ -630,15 +630,21 @@ int shpc_bar_size(PCIDevice *d)
> >>  void shpc_cleanup(PCIDevice *d, MemoryRegion *bar)
> >>  {
> >>      SHPCDevice *shpc = d->shpc;
> >> +    /* TODO: cleanup config space changes? */
> >>      d->cap_present &= ~QEMU_PCI_CAP_SHPC;
> >>      memory_region_del_subregion(bar, &shpc->mmio);
> >> -    /* TODO: cleanup config space changes? */
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +void shpc_free(PCIDevice *d)
> >> +{
> >> +    SHPCDevice *shpc = d->shpc;
> >>      g_free(shpc->config);
> >>      g_free(shpc->cmask);
> >>      g_free(shpc->wmask);
> >>      g_free(shpc->w1cmask);
> >>      memory_region_destroy(&shpc->mmio);
> >>      g_free(shpc);
> >> +    d->shpc = NULL;
> 
> I dislike having random dangling pointers.

I don't care much (though there's something to be
said for not initializing memory you don't expect to be
used - it's a compact way to document no one will look at it).

But if this is changed I'd like to do such changes in
a separate patch.

>  But it's not that bad if I
> move the clearing of QEMU_PCI_CAP_SHPC from shpc_cleanup to shpc_free.
> 
> Paolo

Yea.