Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] s390x: fix memleaks in cpu_finalize

[David Hildenbrand]

On 27.02.20 09:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 2/27/20 9:41 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 27.02.20 03:50, Pan Nengyuan wrote:
>>> This patch fix memleaks when we call tests/qtest/cpu-plug-test on s390x. 
>>> The leak stack is as follow:
>>>
>>> Direct leak of 48 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
>>>      #0 0x7fb43c7cd970 in __interceptor_calloc (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xef970)
>>>      #1 0x7fb43be2149d in g_malloc0 (/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0+0x5249d)
>>>      #2 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_full 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:530
>>>      #3 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:551
>>>      #4 0x558ba96da716 in timer_new_ns 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/include/qemu/timer.h:569
>>>      #5 0x558ba96da716 in s390_cpu_initfn 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/target/s390x/cpu.c:285
>>>      #6 0x558ba9c969ab in object_init_with_type 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:372
>>>      #7 0x558ba9c9eb5f in object_initialize_with_type 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:516
>>>      #8 0x558ba9c9f053 in object_new_with_type 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/qom/object.c:684
>>>      #9 0x558ba967ede6 in s390x_new_cpu 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c:64
>>>      #10 0x558ba99764b3 in hmp_cpu_add 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/hw/core/machine-hmp-cmds.c:57
>>>      #11 0x558ba9b1c27f in handle_hmp_command 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/hmp.c:1082
>>>      #12 0x558ba96c1b02 in qmp_human_monitor_command 
>>> /mnt/sdb/qemu-new/qemu/monitor/misc.c:142
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Euler Robot <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pan Nengyuan <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>> Cc: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
>>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
>>> Cc: address@hidden
>>> ---
>>> v2->v1:
>>> - Similarly to other cleanups, move timer_new into realize(Suggested by 
>>> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé)
>>> v3->v2:
>>> - Also do the timer_free in unrealize, it seems more balance.
>>> ---
>>
>>
>> As I already said, I think this is init and not realize stuff. Do we
>> have a convention now and documented that?
> 
> The clearer doc I read so far is this post:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg680187.html
> (but see the thread for more helpful comments)
> 
> Another thread that you might find interesting is "how to handle QOM 
> 'container' objects whose contents depend on QOM properties?"
> https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg511703.html
> 
>>
>> Anyhow, I don't really care
>> [...]
> 
> Well, looking at the time spent on these series and their review, having 
> it better documented might save time the whole community.

Thanks for the pointers. Yes, we should document that. Especially if it
might save me some time ;)

Moving stuff around without a clear convention is not-so-nice IMHO.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb