From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50517)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VmQxA-0006UW-Oc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:30:13 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VmQx1-0005pm-Q9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:30:04 -0500
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]:55955)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>) id 1VmQx1-0005pi-KR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:29:55 -0500
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id qd12so16787667ieb.15
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:29:55 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5298C0FF.6010404@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:29:51 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1385662155-15212-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<1385662155-15212-5-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<87eh5zl2pq.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<5298B304.1050504@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5298B304.1050504@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] i440fx-test: verify firmware under
 4G and 1M, both -bios and -pflash
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: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 29/11/2013 16:30, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
>> > Zero-fill immediately followed by read.  Suggest to drop memset().
> Same as above. memread() is unable to report errors. Some C library
> functions also require you to set errno to zero first, then call the
> function, then check errno, because some of the return values are
> overlapped by success and failure returns. For memread() there's no
> distinction in return value at all.
> 

Errors in memread() will cause an assertion failure, but I think it's
okay to use g_malloc0.

That said, I agree that the common coding conventions (as well as the
English grammar) makes "char unsigned" look a bit weird.

Regarding usage of fixtures, I think it's within your artistic license
(quoting) and it's good to have an example to cut-and-paste from

Paolo.