From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37670)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlK9m-0003uX-NQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:21:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlK9l-0006xE-Ug
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:21:10 -0400
Received: from mail-yi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:54784)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlK9l-0006xA-Q6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:21:09 -0400
Received: by yia25 with SMTP id 25so2597838yia.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 05:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E2D5FB3.7000906@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:21:07 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1311583872-362-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>	<4E2D5D7C.40208@codemonkey.ws>
	<4E2D5F0D.2040303@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E2D5F0D.2040303@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Introduce QEMU_NEW()
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 07/25/2011 07:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/25/2011 03:11 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 03:51 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> qemu_malloc() is type-unsafe as it returns a void pointer. Introduce
>>> QEMU_NEW() (and QEMU_NEWZ()), which return the correct type.
>>
>> Just use g_new() and g_new0()
>>
>
> These bypass qemu_malloc(). Are we okay with that?

Yes.  We can just make qemu_malloc use g_malloc.

> I suppose so, since many library functions can allocate memory and
> bypass qemu_malloc()?

Right.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>