From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56814)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlM67-0000b5-0M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:25:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlM65-0000kM-U8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:25:30 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:58799)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1QlM65-0000kI-QJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:25:29 -0400
Received: by ywb3 with SMTP id 3so2687679ywb.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E2D7CD7.1060707@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:27 -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>	<4E2D5FB3.7000906@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAAu8pHs_cx5GzNO2J=ZRf7QBTQ1qKratc-f8VxuRQSnrQ8Pb0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHs_cx5GzNO2J=ZRf7QBTQ1qKratc-f8VxuRQSnrQ8Pb0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/25/2011 09:23 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It would be also possible to make g_malloc() use qemu_malloc(). That
> way we could keep the tracepoints which would lose their value with
> g_malloc() otherwise.

Or just add tracepoints to g_malloc()...

But yeah, the point is, we ought to unify to a standard library function 
instead of inventing our own version of everything.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>