On 13/08/2019 11:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 7/30/19 3:23 PM, Andrey Shinkevich wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Ok, FYI, I've queued this patch now in the qtest branch:
>
> https://gitlab.com/huth/qemu/commits/qtest-next
>
> Thomas
>
Thank you Thomas,
I appreciate.
Andrey
--
With the best regards,
Andrey Shinkevich
