On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote: > malc wrote: > > > Does anyone object to this moving forward? > > > > > > > Yeah, i object to the split production/development qemu_malloc[z]. > > > > It's clear to me that there are still improper callers of qemu_malloc() in the > tree. How do you propose we address this for 0.12? > > Aborting in a production build is a rather hostile thing to do if it can be > avoided.
The only real issue encountered so far was eb0b64f7a, there are claims that "maybe there are more", well i can also claim that there are abusers of the interface that just weren't encoutered yet, and those will potentially lead to hard to track bugs, wiped out HDDs, general dissatisfaction and so on and so forth. Truth is that no one performed thorough audit so those are pure speculation. As for 0.12, go wild, i don't care, but only if it lives in it's own zero happy branch. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
