On 05/20/19 23:36, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The pc_fw_cfg_init() function allocates an IO QFWCFG object.
> Add the pc_fw_cfg_uninit() function to deallocate it (and use it).
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Qiang <liq...@163.com>
> Tested-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> Message-Id: <20190424140643.62457-2-liq...@163.com>
> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
> [PMD: Split patch, fill commit description, call uninit in malloc-pc.c]
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tests/fw_cfg-test.c | 1 +
> tests/libqos/fw_cfg.h | 5 +++++
> tests/libqos/malloc-pc.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> index 1c5103fe1c5..a370ad56678 100644
> --- a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> +++ b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>
> ret = g_test_run();
>
> + pc_fw_cfg_uninit(fw_cfg);
> qtest_quit(s);
>
> return ret;
> diff --git a/tests/libqos/fw_cfg.h b/tests/libqos/fw_cfg.h
> index 391669031a3..60de81e8633 100644
> --- a/tests/libqos/fw_cfg.h
> +++ b/tests/libqos/fw_cfg.h
> @@ -42,4 +42,9 @@ static inline QFWCFG *pc_fw_cfg_init(QTestState *qts)
> return io_fw_cfg_init(qts, 0x510);
> }
>
> +static inline void pc_fw_cfg_uninit(QFWCFG *fw_cfg)
> +{
> + io_fw_cfg_uninit(fw_cfg);
> +}
> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/tests/libqos/malloc-pc.c b/tests/libqos/malloc-pc.c
> index 949a99361d1..6f92ce41350 100644
> --- a/tests/libqos/malloc-pc.c
> +++ b/tests/libqos/malloc-pc.c
> @@ -29,5 +29,5 @@ void pc_alloc_init(QGuestAllocator *s, QTestState *qts,
> QAllocOpts flags)
> alloc_init(s, flags, 1 << 20, MIN(ram_size, 0xE0000000), PAGE_SIZE);
>
> /* clean-up */
> - g_free(fw_cfg);
> + pc_fw_cfg_uninit(fw_cfg);
> }
>
The 2nd part of the patch is a refactoring, but the first patch adds a
brand new g_free(), in effect. I think it would be better to separate
them -- in theory anyway. But I realize this patch is already the result
of splitting another patch. I guess we wouldn't want an army of 1-liner
patches...
If you split this patch even further, that's great, you can add my R-b
to both resultant patches. If you decide to keep it as-is, you can also
add my
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
(I'm going to skip the rest of the patches, as they are from Li Qiang,
and you reviewed them already, without implementing changes on top, IIUC.)
Thanks
Laszlo
