On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:02:39AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 15.12.2011 10:36, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:28:28PM +0800, 陳韋任 wrote: > >> I found this in HACKING: > >> > >> Please note that NULL check for the g_malloc result is redundant and > >> that g_malloc() call with zero size is not allowed. > > > > So we have: > > > > 1. You should not request 0 bytes from g_malloc(). > > I think this was related to qemu_malloc() and Anthony's sed run made it > refer to g_malloc(), even though it works just fine with 0 bytes. We > should probably remove this sentence.
If you remove it then you can't interpret it the way I did. It's not longer possible to say that g_malloc() never returns NULL. You always have to qualify that with "unless you ask for 0 bytes". :) Stefan
