[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC: PATCH 0/4] Update array allocation macros

On 08/14/2010 02:05 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> It sounds like it might have some appeal for reducing some of the user's
>> book-keeping, but would require a careful audit of code to safely match
>> VIR_ALLOC_N exactly with VIR_FREE_N.  Thoughts on this approach?
> The #1 goal of the memory allocation APIs is to make it hard to make
> programming mistakes. Having a VIR_FREE and VIR_FREE_N somewhat
> compromises that goal, for only a small convenience, so I don't think
> we need to go down that route.

Thanks for the feedback.  I agree with ditching the idea of VIR_FREE_N
and any notion of storing the allocation size as part of the array - too
much complexity to make it easier to write safe programs.

Now back to the question in my original cover letter: does VIR_RESIZE_N
look worthwhile, or should I confine my rework of VIR_REALLOC_N to just

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]