From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33868)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WwTpC-0003nt-7b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:07:44 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WwTp6-0006Ow-3B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:07:38 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42928)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1WwTp5-0006Op-Qs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:07:32 -0400
Message-ID: <539EC1D5.4060208@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:07:17 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1402720673.git.hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<0c6badd4ed1f0f3af9de36e4b5a17952922fdd05.1402720673.git.hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<539C815B.3000203@redhat.com> <20140615095847.GA11294@redhat.com>
	<20140616095428.GC6179@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140616095428.GC6179@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/4] exec: don't exit unconditionally
 if failed to allocate memory
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: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>

Il 16/06/2014 11:54, Hu Tao ha scritto:
>>> > > This needs an audit of all callers or, alternatively, we need to add
>>> > > memory_region_init_ram_nofail.  Better leave it for after the merge.
> Paolo, IIUC you suggested we fix it after merge.

Yes.

>> > Specifically memory_region_init_ram_from_file does not seem to
>> > handle failures.
> memory_region_init_ram_from_file has an errp. Also see my updated patch.

Yes, memory_region_init_ram_from_file is okay.  memory_region_init_ram 
is the one that doesn't handle failures.

> > qemu_ram_free chunk also looks weird. Can we not avoid calling
> > free on invalid addresses?
>
> but we still need to check the address somewhere if not in
> qemu_ram_free.

If we add an errp to memory_region_init_ram, the qemu_ram_free hunk 
probably will not be necessary anymore.

Paolo