On 12/07/2009 06:20 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Covering every qemu_malloc instance this close to the GA is too
risky. I agree that having separate behavior is less than ideal but
I think it's the only sane way forward.
I don't understand why. What's so insane about Markus' patch?
Allowing size=0 for both developer and production builds?
There is a bug here. Callers are calling qemu_malloc incorrectly.
There is an open discussion about how to address it--fix all callers
of qemu_malloc() or allow size=0. Since there isn't agreement, a
compromise of sticking to the current behavior for the development
tree, and using the later for production since we can't guarantee the
former seems reasonable.
If we apply the patch, the callers are no longer incorrect. Since we're
winding down development on that tree, I see no reason for the
production build to be correct and the development tree to be incorrect.
It seems like the least risky, least change approach to me. Exactly
what we want for 0.12.
The risk is that everyone will agree to this approach in the next two
weeks. I'm fairly certain no amount of discussion on qemu-devel is
going to lead to that.
You've already agreed to it for the production build. There's no gain
in having separate behaviour for development and production, when a tree
is headed towards production.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
