From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44692)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WPfFH-0006gp-91
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:39:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WPfF8-0005pG-53
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:38:55 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40176 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1WPfF7-0005o8-Sv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:38:46 -0400
Message-ID: <53276B64.4040208@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:38:44 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5327618D.5070007@de.ibm.com>
	<CAFEAcA_Oan+QDy2PJswK8jdaadp3gdtj-rrHaT1aAb+i6B3ybw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5327691D.3040906@de.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <5327691D.3040906@de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] small memory leak due to MachineClass rework
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: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.a@redhat.com>

Am 17.03.2014 22:29, schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> On 17/03/14 22:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 March 2014 20:56, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>=
 wrote:
>>> Turns out that valgrind is right. We simply forget the memory that g_=
strconcat has allocated.
>>> This fixes the small leak, but I have to cast away the constness of .=
name.
>>> Any better ideas?
>>
>> It's how cpu_register() in target-arm/cpu.c does the same thing
>> (though we use void* rather than gpointer as the cast).
>=20
> Ok, if you dont have a problem with that approach, I can submit a prope=
r
> patch with signoff.  Any preference regarding void * vs gpointer?

void *. We try to avoid g* types where possible/sensible.

Thanks for catching this!

Cheers,
Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg