From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MA3nh-0000El-Md
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 11:15:17 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MA3nd-0000C7-3q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 11:15:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35422 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MA3nc-0000C1-LM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 11:15:12 -0400
Received: from srv-05.w4a.fr ([94.23.5.116]:46359 helo=mx1.w4a.fr)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jcd@tribudubois.net>) id 1MA3nc-0003bh-9O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 May 2009 11:15:12 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:15:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
From: jcd@tribudubois.net
Message-ID: <9872107.69851243610106203.JavaMail.root@srv-05.w4a.fr>
In-Reply-To: <33383337.69831243610071896.JavaMail.root@srv-05.w4a.fr>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] use qemu_malloc and friends consistently
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org


----- "malc" <av1474@comtv.ru> a =C3=A9crit :

> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>=20
> >=20
> > I disagree.  The wrong reason we introduced oom_check() was because
> we
> > don't trust people to check returns.  Why would we trust them to
> check
> > size arguments especially when a lot of programmers are not going
> to
> > check size arguments by convention?
> >=20
> > If we really want to fix up code, we can do so in a more benign way.
>=20
> > Instead of aborting, let's return malloc(1) and printf a warning.=20
> Then
> > we can fix sites without worrying about killing guests.
>=20
> Printf a warning saying what exactly?

I guess it should say malloc(0) was used with a backtrace to be usefull ...

> > If we only have to fixup a few sites, then yeah, we can switch to
> > abort().  If it turns out there's a ton of these things and the code
> is
> > uglier, then we can give up and just accept these semantics.
>=20
> We _already_ use abort, and so far only one caller was caught and
> taken care of.

I am going to throw in a few more potential cases with my proposed patch. B=
ut not that many ...