Then, you can remove the parameter from kvm_slots_grow() completely and just call it kvm_slots_double() and simplify a bit: static bool kvm_slots_double(KVMMemoryListener *kml) { unsigned int i, nr_slots_new, cur = kml->nr_slots_allocated; KVMSlot *slots; nr_slots_new = MIN(cur * 2, kvm_state->nr_slots_max); if (nr_slots_new == kvm_state->nr_slots_max) { /* We reached the maximum */ return false; } assert(kml->slots); slots = g_renew(KVMSlot, kml->slots, nr_slots_new); /* * g_renew() doesn't initialize extended buffers, however kvm * memslots require fields to be zero-initialized. E.g. pointers, * memory_size field, etc. */ memset(&slots[cur], 0x0, sizeof(slots[0]) * (nr_slots_new - cur)); for (i = cur; i < nr_slots_new; i++) { slots[i].slot = i; } kml->slots = slots; kml->nr_slots_allocated = nr_slots_new; trace_kvm_slots_grow(cur, nr_slots_new); return true; }Personally I still think it cleaner to allow setting whatever size.
Why would one need that? If any, at some point we would want to shrink or rather "compact".
We only have one place growing so far, which is pretty trivial to double there, IMO. I'll wait for a second opinion, or let me know if you have strong feelings..
I think the simplicity of kvm_slots_double() speaks for itself, but I won't fight for it.
-- Cheers, David / dhildenb
