On 30/07/2019 15:59, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 30/07/2019 14.52, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 29/07/2019 14.46, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>>> This patch is to reduce the number of Valgrind report messages about
>>> using uninitialized memory with the null-co driver. It helps to filter
>>> real memory issues and is the same work done for the iotests with the
>>> commit ID a6862418fec4072.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Shinkevich <andrey.shinkev...@virtuozzo.com>
>>> ---
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/tests/test-blockjob-txn.c b/tests/test-blockjob-txn.c
>>> index 86606f9..7da9216 100644
>>> --- a/tests/test-blockjob-txn.c
>>> +++ b/tests/test-blockjob-txn.c
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>>> #include "qemu/main-loop.h"
>>> #include "block/blockjob_int.h"
>>> #include "sysemu/block-backend.h"
>>> +#include "qapi/qmp/qdict.h"
>>>
>>> typedef struct {
>>> BlockJob common;
>>> @@ -96,7 +97,9 @@ static BlockJob *test_block_job_start(unsigned int
>>> iterations,
>>>
>>> data = g_new0(TestBlockJobCBData, 1);
>>>
>>> - bs = bdrv_open("null-co://", NULL, NULL, 0, &error_abort);
>>> + QDict *opt = qdict_new();
>>> + qdict_put_str(opt, "file.read-zeroes", "on");
>>> + bs = bdrv_open("null-co://", NULL, opt, 0, &error_abort);
>>> g_assert_nonnull(bs);
>>
>> Not sure, but don't you need to also qdict_destroy_obj(opt) at the end
>> to avoid leaking memory? (Also in the other spots where you use
>> qdict_new() ...)
>
> Never mind, seems like bdrv_open() is doing an qobject_unref() on the
> options at the end, so I guess this should be fine...
>
> So in that case:
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>
> (I assume this will be taken through the block tree? Let me know if you
> prefer the qtest tree instead)
>
Thanks, Thomas!
I have run the patched program under the Valgrind to double check for
memory issues - no leak reported.
As for the branch, I would be happy with either.
Andey
--
With the best regards,
Andrey Shinkevich
