On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:55:30 +0100 Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> While you're at it, it might be better to use g_new0 here instead > (see e.g. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/517377/ for a description > why this is better). Using g_new0 sounds sensible; but rather than respinning again, I'll just put the following on top: From 0a11840959f61861672858ce961fc34b71efa3be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:19:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] s390x/cpu: use g_new0 Let's use g_new0 to allocate cpu_states. Suggested-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> --- hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c index 4ea9040..7c6e281 100644 --- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ void s390_init_cpus(MachineState *machine) machine->cpu_model = "host"; } - cpu_states = g_malloc0(sizeof(S390CPU *) * max_cpus); + cpu_states = g_new0(S390CPU *, max_cpus); for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) { name = g_strdup_printf("cpu[%i]", i); -- 2.7.2
