From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40610)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rb8kt-0003wT-AD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:41:44 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rb8kr-00012u-K3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:41:39 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45606)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1Rb8kq-00012n-VR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:41:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4EE9CF91.80701@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:33 +0100
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4EE9AB5A.4080306@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20111215082828.GA33201@cs.nctu.edu.tw>
	<20111215093637.GA387@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain>
	<4EE9C5BF.1070400@redhat.com>
	<20111215101939.GA7666@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20111215101939.GA7666@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] some questions about g_malloc in qemu
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: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, Zhi Hui Li <zhihuili@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, zhihuili@cn.ibm.com, =?UTF-8?B?6Zmz6Z+L5Lu7?= <chenwj@iis.sinica.edu.tw>, QEMU-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Am 15.12.2011 11:19, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:02:39AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2011 10:36, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:28:28PM +0800, =E9=99=B3=E9=9F=8B=E4=BB=BB=
 wrote:
>>>>  I found this in HACKING:
>>>>
>>>>   Please note that NULL check for the g_malloc result is redundant a=
nd
>>>>   that g_malloc() call with zero size is not allowed.
>>>
>>> So we have:
>>>
>>> 1. You should not request 0 bytes from g_malloc().
>>
>> I think this was related to qemu_malloc() and Anthony's sed run made i=
t
>> refer to g_malloc(), even though it works just fine with 0 bytes. We
>> should probably remove this sentence.
>=20
> If you remove it then you can't interpret it the way I did.  It's not
> longer possible to say that g_malloc() never returns NULL.  You always
> have to qualify that with "unless you ask for 0 bytes". :)

Try this: "g_malloc() never returns an error". ;-)

Kevin