On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 09:53:54AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.05.2018 20:43, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:34:05PM -0300, Murilo Opsfelder Araujo wrote: > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 03:19:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> While s390x has no real interface for communicating devices mapped into > >>> the physical address space of the guest, paravirtualized devices can > >>> easily expose the applicable address range themselves. > >>> > >>> So let's use the difference between maxram_size and ram_size as the size > >>> for our hotplug memory area (just as on other architectures). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > >>> --- > >>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c > >>> index ee0a2b124f..09b755282b 100644 > >>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c > >>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c > >>> @@ -157,9 +157,11 @@ static void virtio_ccw_register_hcalls(void) > >>> #define KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES ((1ULL << 31) - 1) > >>> #define SEG_MSK (~0xfffffULL) > >>> #define KVM_SLOT_MAX_BYTES ((KVM_MEM_MAX_NR_PAGES * TARGET_PAGE_SIZE) & > >>> SEG_MSK) > >>> -static void s390_memory_init(ram_addr_t mem_size) > >>> +static void s390_memory_init(MachineState *machine) > >>> { > >>> + S390CcwMachineState *ms = S390_CCW_MACHINE(machine); > >>> MemoryRegion *sysmem = get_system_memory(); > >>> + ram_addr_t mem_size = machine->ram_size; > >>> ram_addr_t chunk, offset = 0; > >>> unsigned int number = 0; > >>> gchar *name; > >>> @@ -181,6 +183,28 @@ static void s390_memory_init(ram_addr_t mem_size) > >>> } > >>> g_free(name); > >>> > >>> + /* always allocate the device memory information */ > >>> + machine->device_memory = g_malloc0(sizeof(*machine->device_memory)); > >> > >> Is there any QEMU guideline/preference/recommendation in using g_new0 > >> vs. g_malloc0? > >> > >> I recall Paolo suggesting g_new0 instead of g_malloc0 in another patch: > >> > >> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-05/msg02372.html > > > > This patch comes unmodified from my same queue, therefore the code looks > identical :) > > > I don't see any reason to not use g_new0() instead of > > g_malloc0(sizeof(...)), as it's more readable. > > I clearly favor g_malloc over g_new (except for arrays) for two simple > reasons > > 1. No need to specify the type. Impossible to specify the wrong type. > Easy to rename types. > > 2. Every C developer should be able to understand what g_malloc() does. > This is not true for g_new. Especially as it might look strange for C++ > developers (new vs. new[] - why don't we have g_new() vs. g_new_array()) > > I am a simple man, I prefer functions with one parameter if only one > parameter is needed :) > > > > > But I don't think it's a problem that should block the patch from > > being merged. We have hundreds of g_malloc*(sizeof(...)) calls > > in the tree. > > I assume there are a lot of hard feelings about this. I will continue > using g_malloc() for scalars until the last user is removed from the > QEMU source code. Or there is a coding style statement about it (haven't > found one) ... or people start to curse me when I send patches :)
Having g_malloc() for scalars and g_new() for arrays makes sense. I understand and agree that using g_malloc() should not be a blocker for a patch, as Eduardo stated. Looking at the history, there are quite a few patches replacing g_malloc*() by g_new*() because "is safer against overflow" (see commit 071d4054770205ddb8a58a9e2735069d8fe52af1 as an example): git log --oneline --grep=g_new Perhaps we just need to update "3. Low level memory management" section in HACKING file describing the situations where g_new() is preferred vs. g_malloc() and vice-versa; and use the agreed criteria to ack/nack patches. -- Murilo