Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] CODING_STYLE: add memory management rules

[malc]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:01 PM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Blue Swirl <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > Add memory management rules, somewhat like libvirt HACKING.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <address@hidden>
> >> > ---
> >> >  CODING_STYLE |    8 ++++++++
> >> >  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE
> >> > index 3f10d72..085c86f 100644
> >> > --- a/CODING_STYLE
> >> > +++ b/CODING_STYLE
> >> > @@ -148,3 +148,11 @@ up-front that this is a read-only pointer.  Perhaps 
> >> > more
> >> >  importantly, if we're diligent about this, when you see a non-const
> >> >  pointer, you're guaranteed that it is used to modify the storage
> >> >  it points to, or it is aliased to another pointer that is.
> >> > +
> >> > +
> >> > +7. Low level memory management
> >> > +
> >> > +Use of the malloc/free/realloc/calloc APIs is not allowed in the QEMU
> >>
> >> I forgot to add valloc/memalign/posix_memalign.
> >>
> >> > +codebase. Instead of these routines, use the replacement
> >> > +qemu_malloc/qemu_mallocz/qemu_realloc/qemu_free or
> >> > +qemu_vmalloc/qemu_memalign/qemu_vfree APIs.
> >>
> >> This should also mention that memory allocated by qemu_vmalloc or
> >> qemu_memalign should be freed with qemu_vfree.
> >>
> >> In general, whole of 7 is an existing rule and current codebase seems
> >> to follow it.
> >>
> >> This should be added as a strict rule (as opposed to guideline), since
> >> breaking this will cause problems on Win32 and user emulators.
> >>
> >
> > This is all perfectly reasonable, but begs one question, where do we stop
> > codifying self-evident truths (or who is the ultimiate judge of what is
> > self-evident and what isn't), since taking the above to extreme we will
> > end up adding stuff like: you must use close to dispose of open-ed
> > descriptors and such like.
> 
> Interesting question. We could assume that the target audience knows
> well how to write portable C, conformal to various standards, so we
> only have to point out QEMU specific pitfalls. This approach would
> probably mean that there would be no need to mention, for example, the
> issues with identifiers starting with an underscore.
>
> Another approach is to consider the history. Which types of problems
> there have been frequently with the proposed patches? Then the
> underscore issue (just as an example) should definitely be raised,
> even though that is just one aspect of standards conformance.

I.e. having a (N)FAQ(BNI)

[not] [but nevertheless interesting]

> I don't think either approach would solve your question though.
> 

In any case, what i wanted to convey, but failed, is that this
doesn't, in my opinion, belong to the CODING_STYLE.

-- 
mailto:address@hidden