From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34976)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>) id 1XFhXf-0005vu-UF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 06:37:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>) id 1XFhXb-0002Eu-46
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 06:36:59 -0400
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:3990)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>) id 1XFhXa-0002EA-HV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 06:36:55 -0400
Message-ID: <53E4A806.8070102@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:35:50 +0800
From: zhanghailiang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1407489672-12212-1-git-send-email-zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
	<1407489672-12212-6-git-send-email-zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
	<87oavvjozf.fsf@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <87oavvjozf.fsf@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 05/10] util/path: check return value of
	malloc()
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: =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBCZW5uw6ll?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, lkurusa@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, riku.voipio@iki.fi, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, luonengjun@huawei.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, peter.huangpeng@huawei.com, rth@twiddle.net

On 2014/8/8 17:36, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> zhanghailiang writes:
>
>> Reviewed-by: Gonglei<arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang<zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   util/path.c | 9 ++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/util/path.c b/util/path.c
>> index 5c59d9f..df1653f 100644
>> --- a/util/path.c
>> +++ b/util/path.c
>> @@ -46,9 +46,12 @@ static struct pathelem *new_entry(const char *root,
>>                                     const char *name)
>>   {
>>       struct pathelem *new = malloc(sizeof(*new));
>> -    new->name = strdup(name);
>> -    new->pathname = g_strdup_printf("%s/%s", root, name);
>> -    new->num_entries = 0;
>
> Erm... isn't that malloc wrong as sizeof(*new) would be the size of a
> pointer?
>

No, this is OK! It is equal to sizeof(struct pathelem).

>> +
>> +    if (new) {
>> +        new->name = strdup(name);
>> +        new->pathname = g_strdup_printf("%s/%s", root, name);
>> +        new->num_entries = 0;
>> +    }
>>       return new;
>>   }
>
> A better approach may be to just g_malloc which would abort on failure
> (which would be fine for setup).
>

Hmm, Good idea! It is more quickly to know what happen when it fails.
I will change to it, Thanks, Alex.

> static struct pathelem *new_entry(const char *root,
>                                    struct pathelem *parent,
>                                    const char *name)
> {
>      struct pathelem *new = g_malloc(sizeof(pathelem));
>      new->name = g_strdup(name);
>      new->pathname = g_strdup_printf("%s/%s", root, name);
>      new->num_entries = 0;
>      return new;
> }
>
>
>