From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Np1qY-0003Z7-DL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:59:50 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49735 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Np1qY-0003Ye-0y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:59:50 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1Np1qX-0005y3-6F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:59:49 -0500
Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:46561)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>) id 1Np1qW-0005xt-W4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:59:49 -0500
Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147])
	by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o29FnQaX001795
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:49:26 -0500
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215])
	by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
	o29Fxkf81867822
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:59:46 -0500
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
	o29FxjYX016979
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:59:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4B96706F.9010901@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:59:43 -0800
From: jvrao <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT
References: <1267642874-15001-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<87vddcjhpv.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4B95AD93.1070502@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<201003091230.08628.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201003091230.08628.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.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?

Thanks,
JV

> 
> Paul