On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:38:27 +0100
Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/net/rtl8139.c | 14 --------------
> 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/net/rtl8139.c b/hw/net/rtl8139.c
> index 6fa9e0a..b55e438 100644
> --- a/hw/net/rtl8139.c
> +++ b/hw/net/rtl8139.c
> @@ -2075,20 +2075,6 @@ static int rtl8139_cplus_transmit_one(RTL8139State *s)
> "length to %d\n", txsize);
> }
>
> - if (!s->cplus_txbuffer)
> - {
> - /* out of memory */
> -
> - DPRINTF("+++ C+ mode transmiter failed to reallocate %d bytes\n",
> - s->cplus_txbuffer_len);
> -
> - /* update tally counter */
> - ++s->tally_counters.TxERR;
> - ++s->tally_counters.TxAbt;
> -
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> /* append more data to the packet */
>
> DPRINTF("+++ C+ mode transmit reading %d bytes from host memory at "
Wouldn't it be better to use g_try_malloc() here instead? If the code
can handle OOM conditions, I think it's better to continue with a lost
packet here than to shut down QEMU the hard way.
(Also looking at the history of that file, the code originally used
qemu_malloc() which could fail - but instead of being replaced by
g_try_malloc(), it got replaced with g_malloc() instead which was
maybe the wrong decision).
Thomas
