On 06.02.2020 15:13, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> On 06.02.2020 14:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:06 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03.02.2020 12:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>>>>> @@ -2029,6 +2072,19 @@ static void qemu_whpx_start_vcpu(CPUState *cpu)
>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static void qemu_nvmm_start_vcpu(CPUState *cpu)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + char thread_name[VCPU_THREAD_NAME_SIZE];
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + cpu->thread = g_malloc0(sizeof(QemuThread));
>>>>>>> + cpu->halt_cond = g_malloc0(sizeof(QemuCond));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nitpick, we prefer g_new0().
>>>>>
>>>>> In this file other qemu_*_start_vcpu() use g_malloc0().
>>>>>
>>>>> I will leave this part unchanged and defer tor future style fixups if
>>>>> someone is interested.
>>>>
>>>> Time to re-run Coccinelle with the semantic patch from commit
>>>> b45c03f585e.
>>>
>>> I thought about it, but then noticed it would be clever to modify
>>> checkpatch to refuse 'g_malloc0?(.*sizeof.*);'
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As the patchset was reviewed, could we please merge it in the current
>> (v3) form (*) please?
>
> No objection. If I wanted you to clean this up before we accept your
> work, I would've told you :)
>
> [...]
>
>
I see. I don't own myself a merge queue so I depend on yours.
Thank you in advance!
