[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] target/s390x/arch_dump: Simplify memory allocation in s390x_

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/s390x/arch_dump: Simplify memory allocation in s390x_write_elf64_notes()
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 08:26:29 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0

On 15/02/2023 08.10, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 15/2/23 06:48, Thomas Huth wrote:
We are not on a hot path here, so there is no real need for the logic
here with the split heap and stack space allocation. Simplify it by
always allocating memory from the heap.

Suggested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
  Based-on: <20230214141056.680969-1-thuth@redhat.com>

  target/s390x/arch_dump.c | 20 ++++++--------------
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/s390x/arch_dump.c b/target/s390x/arch_dump.c
index a7c44ba49d..84e17effda 100644
--- a/target/s390x/arch_dump.c
+++ b/target/s390x/arch_dump.c
@@ -227,25 +227,23 @@ static int s390x_write_elf64_notes(const char *note_name,
                                         DumpState *s,
                                         const NoteFuncDesc *funcs)
-    Note note, *notep;
+    g_autofree Note *notep = NULL;
      const NoteFuncDesc *nf;
-    int note_size, content_size;
+    int note_size, prev_size = 0, content_size;

We can start with:

   prev_size = sizeof(Note);

If this goes thru your tree, feel free to modify without respining.

But then I'd also need to initialize notep above differently, don't I?
And if I've got it right, this function sometimes also deals with chunks that are smaller, so I think it's cleaner if we start with zero instead of sizeof(Note).

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]