On 27.02.20 09:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 2/27/20 9:41 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 27.02.20 03:50, Pan Nengyuan wrote: >>> This patch fix memleaks when we call tests/qtest/cpu-plug-test on s390x. >>> The leak stack is as follow: >>> >>> Direct leak of 48 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: >>> #0 0x7fb43c7cd970 in __interceptor_calloc (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xef970) >>> #1 0x7fb43be2149d in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x5249d) >>> #2 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_full >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530 >>> #3 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551 >>> #4 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_ns >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569 >>> #5 0x558ba96da716 in s390_cpu_initfn >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/target/s390x/cpu.c:285 >>> #6 0x558ba9c969ab in object_init_with_type >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:372 >>> #7 0x558ba9c9eb5f in object_initialize_with_type >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:516 >>> #8 0x558ba9c9f053 in object_new_with_type >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:684 >>> #9 0x558ba967ede6 in s390x_new_cpu >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c:64 >>> #10 0x558ba99764b3 in hmp_cpu_add >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/core/machine-hmp-cmds.c:57 >>> #11 0x558ba9b1c27f in handle_hmp_command >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/hmp.c:1082 >>> #12 0x558ba96c1b02 in qmp_human_monitor_command >>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/misc.c:142 >>> >>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.ro...@huawei.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <pannengy...@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> >>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> >>> Cc: qemu-s3...@nongnu.org >>> --- >>> v2->v1: >>> - Similarly to other cleanups, move timer_new into realize(Suggested by >>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé) >>> v3->v2: >>> - Also do the timer_free in unrealize, it seems more balance. >>> --- >> >> >> As I already said, I think this is init and not realize stuff. Do we >> have a convention now and documented that? > > The clearer doc I read so far is this post: > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg680187.html > (but see the thread for more helpful comments) > > Another thread that you might find interesting is "how to handle QOM > 'container' objects whose contents depend on QOM properties?" > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg511703.html > >> >> Anyhow, I don't really care >> [...] > > Well, looking at the time spent on these series and their review, having > it better documented might save time the whole community.
Thanks for the pointers. Yes, we should document that. Especially if it might save me some time ;) Moving stuff around without a clear convention is not-so-nice IMHO. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb