Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] virtio-9p: Implement P9_TSTAT

[jvrao]

Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:35:36 +0300 (MSK), malc <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> This get the mount to work on the guest
>>>
>>> address@hidden: malloc to qemu_malloc conversion]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/virtio-9p-local.c |    7 ++
>>>  hw/virtio-9p.c       |  169 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  2 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio-9p-local.c b/hw/virtio-9p-local.c
>>> index 204437c..9752f76 100644
>>> --- a/hw/virtio-9p-local.c
>>> +++ b/hw/virtio-9p-local.c
>>> @@ -72,9 +72,16 @@ static int local_setuid(void *opaque, uid_t uid)
>>>      return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static ssize_t local_readlink(void *opaque, const char *path,
>>> +                         char *buf, size_t bufsz)
>>> +{
>>> +    return readlink(rpath(path), buf, bufsz);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static V9fsPosixFileOperations ops = {
>>>      .lstat = local_lstat,
>>>      .setuid = local_setuid,
>>> +    .readlink = local_readlink,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>>  V9fsPosixFileOperations *virtio_9p_init_local(const char *path)
>>> diff --git a/hw/virtio-9p.c b/hw/virtio-9p.c
>>> index c63ac80..10bcd89 100644
>>> --- a/hw/virtio-9p.c
>>> +++ b/hw/virtio-9p.c
>>> @@ -102,6 +102,21 @@ static int posix_setuid(V9fsState *s, uid_t uid)
>>>      return s->ops->setuid(s->ops->opaque, uid);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static ssize_t posix_readlink(V9fsState *s, V9fsString *path, V9fsString 
>>> *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +    ssize_t len;
>>> +
>>> +    buf->data = qemu_malloc(1024);
>>> +
>>> +    len = s->ops->readlink(s->ops->opaque, path->data, buf->data, 1024 - 
>>> 1);
>>> +    if (len > -1) {
>>> +   buf->size = len;
>>> +   buf->data[len] = 0;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return len;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static void v9fs_string_free(V9fsString *str)
>>>  {
>>>      free(str->data);
>> Should be qemu_free, no?
>>
> 
> 
> Updated the patch

Is  there any reason (other than being coding style) in using qemu_free() 
instead of free()? As per qem-malloc.c qemu_free() is nothing but free().

The reason I am asking is.. tracking string allocs become tricky 
if some of them were defined using qemu_alloc() and others are allocated through
sprintf().

Thanks,
JV


> 
> -aneesh
> 
>