From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHgxu-0006AU-Mx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:39 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NHgxn-00069c-3x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:37 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34559 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHgxl-00069M-BA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:30 -0500
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:48848)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NHgxl-0002Kb-EG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:29 -0500
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so768155fga.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B1D34E2.6010109@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:01:22 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Permit zero-sized qemu_malloc() & friends
References: <m3skbwxgkp.fsf@crossbow.pond.sub.org>
	<4B1D2462.3070000@codemonkey.ws>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0912071955070.2225@linmac.oyster.ru>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0912071955070.2225@linmac.oyster.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

malc wrote:
>> Does anyone object to this moving forward?
>>     
>
> Yeah, i object to the split production/development qemu_malloc[z].
>   

It's clear to me that there are still improper callers of qemu_malloc() 
in the tree.  How do you propose we address this for 0.12?

Aborting in a production build is a rather hostile thing to do if it can 
be avoided.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori