Il 05/06/2013 06:53, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 12:40:00AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 05/06/2013 00:03, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>>>>> + if (dev->msix_table || dev->msix_pba || dev->msix_entry_used) {
>>>>> + msix_free(dev);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> dev->msix_table = g_malloc0(table_size);
>>>>> dev->msix_pba = g_malloc0(pba_size);
>>>>> dev->msix_entry_used = g_malloc0(nentries * sizeof
>>>>> *dev->msix_entry_used);
>>> Wow msix_init calls msix_free, and not on error path?
>>> What's going on here?
>>
>> I wasn't too sure that you could get here only with NULL
>> msix_table/pba/entry_used and wanted to protect against leaks. I'll
>> change it to an assertion.
>
> I don't think we should require users allocate all memory with g_malloc0.
> So no assertion either.
Assertion that is is NULL, followed by g_malloc0?
> If there's a leak there was always a leak
No, there wasn't because msix_uninit would have freed the memory. That is,
msix_init
msix_uninit
msix_init
msix_uninit
had no leak. Instead, now msix_free is going to be called just once,
right before freeing the object itself:
msix_init
msix_uninit
msix_init ***
msix_uninit
msix_free
and will have a leak at ***. I don't think this can happen, unrealize
should never be followed by another realize right now, but perhaps in
the future it will be if we implement something like "device_poweroff"
and "device_poweron".
Paolo
, let's focus on the
> API change in this series, OK?
>
>>>>> @@ -359,16 +363,26 @@ void msix_uninit(PCIDevice *dev, MemoryRegion
>>>>> *table_bar, MemoryRegion *pba_bar)
>>>>> msix_free_irq_entries(dev);
>>>>> dev->msix_entries_nr = 0;
>>>>> memory_region_del_subregion(pba_bar, &dev->msix_pba_mmio);
>>>>> - memory_region_destroy(&dev->msix_pba_mmio);
>>>>> - g_free(dev->msix_pba);
>>>>> - dev->msix_pba = NULL;
>>>>> memory_region_del_subregion(table_bar, &dev->msix_table_mmio);
>>>>> - memory_region_destroy(&dev->msix_table_mmio);
>>>>> - g_free(dev->msix_table);
>>>>> + dev->cap_present &= ~QEMU_PCI_CAP_MSIX;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void msix_free(PCIDevice *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (dev->msix_pba) {
>>>>> + memory_region_destroy(&dev->msix_pba_mmio);
>>>>> + g_free(dev->msix_pba);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + dev->msix_pba = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (dev->msix_table) {
>>>>> + memory_region_destroy(&dev->msix_table_mmio);
>>>>> + g_free(dev->msix_table);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> dev->msix_table = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> g_free(dev->msix_entry_used);
>>>>> dev->msix_entry_used = NULL;
>>>>> - dev->cap_present &= ~QEMU_PCI_CAP_MSIX;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void msix_uninit_exclusive_bar(PCIDevice *dev)
>>> As long as we had init and uninit, it was mostly
>>> self-documenting.
>>> Now, there are two cleanup functions, so please add documentation.
>>
>> Yes, will do.
>>
>> Paolo
>
>
