On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:57:43AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 15.05.2018 07:58, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muri...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > > > >> 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? > > > > Yes, there is: we prefer g_new(T, n) over g_malloc(sizeof(T) * n) even > > when n==1. Commit b45c03f585e explains: > > > > g_new(T, n) is neater than g_malloc(sizeof(T) * n). It's also safer, > > for two reasons. One, it catches multiplication overflowing size_t. > > Two, it returns T * rather than void *, which lets the compiler catch > > more type errors. > > > > 'One' doesn't apply when n==1. 'Two' does. > > > > We're okay with things like T *v = g_malloc(sizeof(*v)). Yes, 'two' > > applies here as well, but screwups are relatively unlikely. > > > >>>>> 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. > > > > Quite possible to specify the wrong size in other ways, and the type > > checker can't save you then (that's 'two'), although Coverity might. > > Good point about the type checker! > > > > >>> Easy to rename types. > > > > Renaming a type is exactly as easy as renaming a variable or any other > > identifer: you have to update all occurences. > > > > And that means touching more lines. > > >> 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. > > > > We tend to update HACKING when we find ourselves debating the same > > things over and over. Perhaps this is such a case. > > > > I don't want to get too involved in this discussion. (I have other > problems to solve :) ) > > If we make this a rule, I want somebody to convert all applicable cases > to the desired format. (we won't be able to convert all cases, e.g. > structs with variable sized member arrays.)
I'll try to create a semantic patch to cover most of the cases. For now, I only sent an update to the HACKING file: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-05/msg03362.html -- Murilo