[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT
From: |
Paul Brook |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:37:53 +0000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32-trunk-amd64; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ; ) |
> Paul Brook wrote:
> >> Is there any reason (other than being coding style) in using
> >> qemu_free() instead of free()? As per qem-malloc.c qemu_free() is
> >> nothing but free().
> >
> > The whole point of qemu_{malloc,free} is to isolate code from the system
> > implementation of malloc/free. It's entirely possible that future
> > versions of qemu_malloc will use a different memory allocation strategy.
> >
> >> The reason I am asking is.. tracking string allocs become tricky
> >> if some of them were defined using qemu_alloc() and others are allocated
> >> through sprintf().
> >
> > sprintf does not allocate memory.
> > If you mean strdup, then you shouldn't be using that (use qemu_strdup).
>
> Thanks for correcting Paul.. I was talking about vasprintf() .. not really
> the sprintf() In any case.. right way to do it may be adding a new
> qemu_vasprintf() for and use it along with qemu_free() Right?
Something like that, yes. Any use of [v]asprintf is incorrect.
Paul
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/17] vrtio-9p: Implement P9_TVERSION for 9P, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TCLUNK, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/17] vitio-9p: Add a virtio 9p device to qemu, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TOPEN, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 05/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TWALK, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TATTACH, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 16/17] virtio-9p: Add support for hardlink, Anthony Liguori, 2010/03/03