Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH v2 1/7] virtiofsd: Changed allocations of fuse_req to GLib functions
* Mahmoud Mandour (ma.mando...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:03 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:46:36PM +0200, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
> > > Replaced the allocation and deallocation of fuse_req structs
> > > using calloc()/free() call pairs to a GLib's g_try_new0()
> > > and g_free().
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What's the context of these patches. I see all of them are switching
> > to glib functions. Why to do that? What's the advantage.
> >
> > Vivek
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Mandour
> > > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
> > > ---
> > > tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > > index 58e32fc963..812cef6ef6 100644
> > > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void list_add_req(struct fuse_req *req,
> > struct fuse_req *next)
> > > static void destroy_req(fuse_req_t req)
> > > {
> > > pthread_mutex_destroy(>lock);
> > > -free(req);
> > > +g_free(req);
> > > }
> > >
> > > void fuse_free_req(fuse_req_t req)
> > > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *fuse_ll_alloc_req(struct
> > fuse_session *se)
> > > {
> > > struct fuse_req *req;
> > >
> > > -req = (struct fuse_req *)calloc(1, sizeof(struct fuse_req));
> > > +req = g_try_new0(struct fuse_req, 1);
> > > if (req == NULL) {
> > > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "fuse: failed to allocate request\n");
> > > } else {
> > > @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *check_interrupt(struct
> > fuse_session *se,
> > > if (curr->u.i.unique == req->unique) {
> > > req->interrupted = 1;
> > > list_del_req(curr);
> > > -free(curr);
> > > +g_free(curr);
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Virtio-fs mailing list
> > > virtio...@redhat.com
> > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
> >
> >
> Hello Vivek,
>
> Taken from the Qemu Coding Style document in the documentation:
> "Use of the malloc/free/realloc/calloc/valloc/memalign/posix_memalign APIs
> is not allowed in the QEMU codebase. Instead of these routines, use the
> GLib memory allocation routines
> g_malloc/g_malloc0/g_new/g_new0/g_realloc/g_free or QEMU’s
> qemu_memalign/qemu_blockalign/qemu_vfree APIs."
> It's also in the bite-sized contributions page as a task.
Yes I think generally that's OK; note that virtiofsd is a little unusual
in that a lot of it is imported from an external library and then
changed; so we've not done a lot of these type of qemu-speicific styles.
Dave
> Thanks,
> Mahmoud
> ___
> Virtio-fs mailing list
> virtio...@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH v2 1/7] virtiofsd: Changed allocations of fuse_req to GLib functions
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:03 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:46:36PM +0200, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
> > Replaced the allocation and deallocation of fuse_req structs
> > using calloc()/free() call pairs to a GLib's g_try_new0()
> > and g_free().
>
> Hi,
>
> What's the context of these patches. I see all of them are switching
> to glib functions. Why to do that? What's the advantage.
>
> Vivek
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Mandour
> > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
> > ---
> > tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > index 58e32fc963..812cef6ef6 100644
> > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void list_add_req(struct fuse_req *req,
> struct fuse_req *next)
> > static void destroy_req(fuse_req_t req)
> > {
> > pthread_mutex_destroy(>lock);
> > -free(req);
> > +g_free(req);
> > }
> >
> > void fuse_free_req(fuse_req_t req)
> > @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *fuse_ll_alloc_req(struct
> fuse_session *se)
> > {
> > struct fuse_req *req;
> >
> > -req = (struct fuse_req *)calloc(1, sizeof(struct fuse_req));
> > +req = g_try_new0(struct fuse_req, 1);
> > if (req == NULL) {
> > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "fuse: failed to allocate request\n");
> > } else {
> > @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *check_interrupt(struct
> fuse_session *se,
> > if (curr->u.i.unique == req->unique) {
> > req->interrupted = 1;
> > list_del_req(curr);
> > -free(curr);
> > +g_free(curr);
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> > ___
> > Virtio-fs mailing list
> > virtio...@redhat.com
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
>
>
Hello Vivek,
Taken from the Qemu Coding Style document in the documentation:
"Use of the malloc/free/realloc/calloc/valloc/memalign/posix_memalign APIs
is not allowed in the QEMU codebase. Instead of these routines, use the
GLib memory allocation routines
g_malloc/g_malloc0/g_new/g_new0/g_realloc/g_free or QEMU’s
qemu_memalign/qemu_blockalign/qemu_vfree APIs."
It's also in the bite-sized contributions page as a task.
Thanks,
Mahmoud
Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH v2 1/7] virtiofsd: Changed allocations of fuse_req to GLib functions
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:46:36PM +0200, Mahmoud Mandour wrote:
> Replaced the allocation and deallocation of fuse_req structs
> using calloc()/free() call pairs to a GLib's g_try_new0()
> and g_free().
Hi,
What's the context of these patches. I see all of them are switching
to glib functions. Why to do that? What's the advantage.
Vivek
>
> Signed-off-by: Mahmoud Mandour
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
> ---
> tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> index 58e32fc963..812cef6ef6 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void list_add_req(struct fuse_req *req, struct
> fuse_req *next)
> static void destroy_req(fuse_req_t req)
> {
> pthread_mutex_destroy(>lock);
> -free(req);
> +g_free(req);
> }
>
> void fuse_free_req(fuse_req_t req)
> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *fuse_ll_alloc_req(struct
> fuse_session *se)
> {
> struct fuse_req *req;
>
> -req = (struct fuse_req *)calloc(1, sizeof(struct fuse_req));
> +req = g_try_new0(struct fuse_req, 1);
> if (req == NULL) {
> fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_ERR, "fuse: failed to allocate request\n");
> } else {
> @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static struct fuse_req *check_interrupt(struct
> fuse_session *se,
> if (curr->u.i.unique == req->unique) {
> req->interrupted = 1;
> list_del_req(curr);
> -free(curr);
> +g_free(curr);
> return NULL;
> }
> }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> ___
> Virtio-fs mailing list
> virtio...@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
