Stefan Weil <s...@weilnetz.de> writes:
> Am 10.02.2012 16:13, schrieb Zhi Yong Wu:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
>> <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:34:13PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>>>> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> oslib-posix.c | 4 ++--
>>>> oslib-win32.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/oslib-posix.c b/oslib-posix.c
>>>> index b6a3c7f..f978d56 100644
>>>> --- a/oslib-posix.c
>>>> +++ b/oslib-posix.c
>>>> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ void *qemu_oom_check(void *ptr)
>>>> {
>>>> if (ptr == NULL) {
>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate memory: %s\n",
>>>> strerror(errno));
>>>> - abort();
>>>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>>
>>> exit() will call any atexit()/on_exit() handlers, as well as trying
>>> to flush I/O streams. Any of these actions may require further
>>> memory allocations, which will likely fail, or worse cause this
>>> code to re-enter itself if an atexit() handler calls qemu_malloc
>> Nice, very reasonable.
>>>
>>> The only option other than abort(), is to use _Exit() which
>>> doesn't try to run cleanup handlers.
>> I will try to send out v2
>
> Could you please explain why calling exit, _Exit or _exit is more
> reasonable than calling abort?
>
> abort can create core dumps or start a debugger which is
> useful for me and maybe other developers, too.
I consider abort() on OOM somewhat eccentric. abort() is for
programming errors. Resource shortage is an environmental error that is
sometimes (but not always) caused by a programming error.
I'd rather inconvenience programmers (by making it a little bit harder
to debug programming errors that cause OOM) than confuse users with
inappropriate scary "crashes".
